Content
65%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
Highly actionable with concrete A-share-specific formulas and thresholds, but it is a dense monolithic file that would benefit from tighter prose, explicit validation checkpoints in the trading workflow, and offloading reference material to bundled files.
Suggestions
Add explicit validation checkpoints into the four-step workflow (e.g. confirm ≥8 quarters of forecast-error history before computing SUE; confirm analyst coverage ≥3 before trusting consensus; strip 非经常性损益 before EPS comparison).
Move the 财报日历 table and detailed SUE/ERM threshold tables into reference files (e.g. references/calendar.md, references/thresholds.md) and link from the overview to improve progressive disclosure.
Trim conceptual prose that restates broadly known ideas (e.g. why expectation gaps matter, basic margin drivers) to improve token efficiency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient with genuinely value-adding A-share-specific thresholds and formulas, but it includes conceptual filler Claude largely knows ('股价短期由盈利预期差驱动…') and re-stated basics that could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully executable formula/code blocks (SUE, ERM, dispersion, portfolio config) with concrete numeric thresholds and a copy-paste-ready output template rather than pseudocode. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The '盈利分析四步法' gives a clear sequence, but batch trading workflows lack explicit validation checkpoints (e.g. verify ≥8 quarters of history, analyst coverage ≥3, 扣非EPS adjustments) wired into the flow, capping clarity at 2. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-labeled sections and no broken/nested references, but the ~194-line monolithic body inlines threshold tables, the 财报日历, and detailed methodology that a more progressive design would offload to reference files. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |