risk-management

Risk management rules learned from competition outcomes. Use when sizing positions or setting stop-losses.

0.98x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

90%

0.98x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

22%

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

The body is a verbose, redundant auto-generated rules dump with conflicting signals and no sequenced workflow, which hurts token efficiency and clarity. It does offer some concrete actionable guidance in the General Guidelines and numeric limits, but lacks structure for applying the rules.

Suggestions

Eliminate the redundancy between the 40-row summary table and the expanded 'Top Risk Rules' section, and move or remove scattered time-sensitive dates into a single 'Last updated' or deprecated section.

Resolve conflicting rules (e.g., 2% equity + 2:1 reward rated both 92% success and 35% fail) so Claude knows which guidance to follow.

Reframe the rules as a short ordered decision workflow (determine market regime -> set trade-frequency limit -> size position -> set stop-loss -> validate risk before entry) with an explicit validation checkpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The 40-row summary table repeats rules that are then expanded again in 'Top Risk Rules', truncated table entries ('...pe...') add noise, and time-sensitive dates ('First identified: 2026-01-13', 'Last updated: 2026-01-17') appear outside any deprecated section.	1 / 3
Actionability	General Guidelines give concrete directives (2% equity, stop-losses, 25% limit, 0-10 trades/24h), but these are mixed with non-directive correlational findings and conflicting rules where 2% equity + 2:1 reward is rated both 92% 'best performance' and 35% 'fails'.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Rules are presented as a flat list with no sequenced decision procedure and no validation checkpoints, even though 'validate risk per trade explicitly before entry' implies ordering that is never structured as a workflow.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Clear sections (Core Principles, Top Risk Rules, General Guidelines, Confidence Guide) give reasonable navigation, but at over 50 lines everything is inline and the table/detail redundancy could be split or trimmed rather than dumped in one file.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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

The description cleanly answers both what the skill does and when to use it with a proper third-person voice and explicit trigger clause. It is moderately specific and distinctive but could enumerate more concrete actions and trigger-term variations.

Suggestions

Add one or two more concrete actions (e.g., '...setting stop-losses, capping risk per trade, or diversifying across assets') to lift specificity toward a level-3 list.

Broaden trigger terms with natural variations users would say, such as 'position sizing', 'risk per trade', or 'portfolio risk'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('risk management') and a couple of actions ('sizing positions', 'setting stop-losses'), but does not list multiple specific concrete actions, so it falls short of the level-3 anchor.	2 / 3
Completeness	It states what the skill provides ('Risk management rules learned from competition outcomes') and gives an explicit 'Use when sizing positions or setting stop-losses' trigger, answering both what and when.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'sizing positions', 'stop-losses', and 'risk management' are natural trader terms, but coverage is thin with no common variations such as 'position sizing', 'risk per trade', or 'drawdown'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The trading-specific triggers ('sizing positions', 'stop-losses') anchor it, but 'risk management' as a name is broad and could overlap with non-trading risk skills, so it is not a clear level-3 niche.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: NeverSight/skills_feed
Commit: 26d37ce

Reviewed: 4 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.