options-payoff

Option P&L analysis methodology: payoff diagrams, breakeven calculation, multi-leg strategy visualization, and Greeks-based scenario analysis.

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./agent/src/skills/options-payoff/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable — executable templates with exact contracts and a clear 'import, do not retype' stance toward the project's quantlib — but it is held back by textbook padding and a monolithic single-file structure with no progressive disclosure. Trimming the formula derivations and strategy tables into reference files would substantially improve both conciseness and organization.

Suggestions

Move the Black-Scholes formula derivations (sections 2.2-2.4) and the strategy encyclopedia (section 1) into reference files (e.g. references/strategies.md, references/pricing.md), keeping only a compact summary and the import contract in SKILL.md — the skill already states the formulas are documentation, not instructions, so they need not be inline.

Add an explicit step-by-step workflow section (load skill → call options_payoff for production numbers → build plots from the templates → verify breakevens against analytic results) with a validation checkpoint comparing grid-derived breakevens to the analytic ones.

Trim or collapse the per-strategy tables to the strategies actually used in the project's decision tree, since standard option strategy definitions are knowledge Claude already has.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Sections 1-2 spend roughly 200 lines on textbook material Claude already knows (full Black-Scholes formulas, every Greek's formula, put-call parity, an encyclopedia of standard strategies), and the skill itself concedes the formulas 'are not an instruction to rewrite it' — yet still documents them in full. Several padded sections exist, matching 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' rather than 3, where only isolated over-explanation would remain.	2 / 5
Actionability	The body provides copy-paste-ready executable code (compute_expiry_payoff, plotting templates, Greeks profile, a runnable Quick Usage example), exact import paths, argument order, and a precise behavior contract table ('Theta per calendar day; Vega and Rho per 1 percentage point; ... nothing is rounded'). This matches the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' anchor, with the common cases specifically covered.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Content is organized in a logical order (strategies → pricing → payoff analysis → templates → usage) with valuable correctness guardrails ('Never derive max profit/loss only from sampled chart points'), but it reads as a reference document rather than a sequenced workflow: there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops, matching 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' rather than 4, where most checkpoints would be explicit.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	No bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist; all ~750 lines — the strategy encyclopedia, formula derivations, and three full plotting templates — are inlined in a single SKILL.md with nothing split out. This matches 'minimal structure; content that clearly belongs in separate files is inlined' rather than 3, because there is not even partial offloading to referenced files.	2 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

70%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A specific, distinct, third-person description whose capability list is concrete and jargon-appropriate. Its main weakness is the complete absence of an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which caps completeness at 3 despite otherwise strong wording.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'when' clause, e.g. 'Use when analyzing option strategies, computing breakevens or payoff diagrams, or comparing multi-leg structures like spreads, straddles, and iron condors.'

Mention Black-Scholes pricing and implied volatility inversion explicitly in the capability list to close the coverage gap and add natural trigger terms such as 'implied volatility' and 'straddle'.

Include a few strategy-name synonyms (spread, straddle, iron condor, covered call) to broaden natural trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists four concrete actions ("payoff diagrams, breakeven calculation, multi-leg strategy visualization, and Greeks-based scenario analysis") with only minor coverage gaps — Black-Scholes pricing and implied volatility inversion are only implied. This matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor rather than 5 (coverage not comprehensive) or 3 (more than 1-2 actions listed).	4 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clearly and concretely answered, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance anywhere in the description, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms users would say include "payoff", "breakeven", "Greeks", "multi-leg strategy", and "P&L", giving good keyword coverage; however, common variations such as "options", "straddle", "spread", or "iron condor" are missing, matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of a 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Option P&L analysis", "payoff diagrams", "Greeks", and "breakeven calculation" carve out a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk against generic data-analysis or trading skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (756 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: HKUDS/Vibe-Trading
Path: agent/src/skills/options-payoff/SKILL.md
Commit: 251b094

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.