financial-model-review

Investor-first workflow for reviewing an existing financial model, forecast, or sensitivity analysis. Use for prompts like "review this model", "stress test these assumptions", "what breaks in this forecast", or "is this model decision-ready". Best when you have a spreadsheet export, pasted assumptions, key drivers, and the decision the model supports. Optional Open Brain search and capture can pull prior model context and store the final review memo.

Quality

85%

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

Quality

Content

82%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.

A tight, well-structured instruction-only skill with specific, actionable review checklists and a clear process sequence. Adding a worked example (e.g. a sample assumption critique) and making validation/quality gates explicit would lift the lower dimensions.

Suggestions

Add one short worked example (e.g. a sample driver assumption and the resulting 'fatal issue / caution flag / acceptable simplification' verdict) to lift actionability from 4 to 5.

Make the review's quality gates explicit as a validation checklist (e.g. 'confirm downside case present before finalizing verdict') rather than relying on implicit Evidence rules, to strengthen workflow_clarity.

Consider splitting the per-step review checklists into a short reference file referenced from the Process section, which would let the overview stay lean while improving progressive_disclosure navigation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; brief framing like 'A model can look polished and still be dangerous' earns its place rather than over-explaining. Every section is purposeful, fitting the 5 anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete, specific checklists ('unsupported growth, margin leaps, pricing optimism, CAC efficiency, churn stability, and timing shortcuts'; 'missing drivers, circular reasoning, hidden hard-codes, inconsistent periods, or unsupported roll-forwards') rather than vague direction; no code, but guidance is actionable for an instruction-only skill. A lack of worked examples keeps it at 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 7-step numbered Process sequences framing through output; the skill is a read-only review so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply, but validation checkpoints are implicit (Evidence and Judgment Rules) rather than explicit validate-fix-retry loops, fitting 4 over 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-organized into purposeful sections with no content inlined that belongs in separate files, and cross-skill references are clearly signaled under 'Works Well With'. No bundle files exist to navigate, and at ~90 lines it is slightly over the simple-skill threshold, so 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 strong, well-targeted description that clearly states both capability and trigger conditions with natural user language. Minor synonym/file-extension coverage is the only thing keeping trigger quality and specificity off the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and several concrete actions ('reviewing an existing financial model, forecast, or sensitivity analysis', 'stress test these assumptions', 'pull prior model context and store the final review memo'); falls just short of comprehensive coverage of all review actions, fitting the 4 anchor better than 3 or 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Investor-first workflow for reviewing an existing financial model, forecast, or sensitivity analysis') and when ('Use for prompts like...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the 5 anchor precisely; not below because the 'when' is explicit, not implied.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes four natural user phrases ('review this model', 'stress test these assumptions', 'what breaks in this forecast', 'is this model decision-ready') that a user would actually say; missing some synonyms/file extensions (e.g. '.xlsx', 'spreadsheet', 'forecast') that would push it to 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (financial model review) with distinct triggers and explicit boundary routing to sibling skills, giving minimal conflict risk; fits the 5 anchor rather than 4 where overlap risk would still be present.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: NateBJones-Projects/OB1
Path: skills/financial-model-review/SKILL.md
Commit: e79e9cb

Reviewed: 11 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.