Content
65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A dense, highly actionable body packed with concrete quantitative thresholds, market-specific evidence, and a clear output template. Weaknesses are the absence of an explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints, undefined helpers in the code snippet, and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure.
Suggestions
Add an explicit numbered analysis workflow (data prep → sentiment diagnosis → bias detection → signal generation → out-of-sample validation) with a validation checkpoint, since the frameworks are currently parallel rather than sequenced.
Make the composite sentiment snippet executable or explicitly justify the pseudocode by defining normalize() and weighted_sum().
Move the bias tables and sentiment-cycle detail into a references/ file (e.g. BIAS-CHECKLISTS.md), keeping SKILL.md as a lean overview.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Dense, data-rich tables and thresholds with almost no padding, assuming domain knowledge (SUE, CGO, chip-distribution) without explaining basics. A few reference-weight sections (the two bias tables, the sentiment-cycle ASCII chart) could be trimmed or split, keeping it below the lean 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete thresholds throughout ('RSI(5) < 15', 'CGO > 0.2', 'abnormal turnover > 3x average'), a component-weighted sentiment spec, checklists, and an output template. However, the Python snippet depends on undefined helpers (normalize(), weighted_sum()) and most signals are pseudo-specs rather than copy-paste code, so not fully executable. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four analysis frameworks and output template are well structured but presented in parallel; there is no explicit step sequence with validation checkpoints, and out-of-sample validation appears only as a caution in Notes. Checkpoints are missing/implicit rather than minor gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Good section structure with clear headers, but the ~200-line body is a monolith with no bundle files; the bias tables and sentiment-indicator spec are inline content that could live in reference files. Fits the 3 anchor ('some structure but could be better organized') better than the 2 anchor, since structure is solid and no references exist to be buried. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |