Content
82%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.
The body is a strong, actionable specification: concrete templates, quantitative rating thresholds, and explicit formatting standards make it highly actionable and well-sequenced with quality checklists. Its only notable gaps are a few trimmable reference sections and the absence of any external reference files to offload the longer reference material.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is information-dense — tables, templates, and concrete standards rather than padded prose — and largely avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows; minor trim opportunities exist (e.g. the abbreviations table and sample data inside the backtest template), keeping it just below fully lean. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides copy-paste-ready report templates, quantitative rating thresholds (Sharpe > 1.5, max drawdown < 20%), explicit number/table formatting rules, and concrete file inputs ("read metrics.csv and equity.csv"), covering the common report types comprehensively. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence exists in "Preparation Before Writing" and "Writing Principles", and the "Output Format" / "Notes" sections function as verification checklists (≥3 risk warnings, disclaimer mandatory, data consistency); it is not a 5 because there is no explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop, though report generation does not strictly require one. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The single-file skill is well-organized into clearly headed sections that are easy to navigate; it stops short of 5 because no bundle reference files are used, so terminology/templates that could be split out are all inlined in one ~260-line file. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |