risk-management
Risk management rules learned from competition outcomes. Use when sizing positions or setting stop-losses.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:NeverSight/skills_feed --skill risk-management60
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
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.
This description is functional with a clear 'Use when' clause that explicitly states trigger conditions. However, it lacks specificity about what rules were actually learned and could benefit from more natural trigger terms. The competition-based learning angle is unique but underutilized for distinctiveness.
Suggestions
Add more specific concrete actions describing what the rules actually do (e.g., 'Calculates position sizes based on volatility, determines optimal stop-loss distances, applies Kelly criterion')
Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'risk/reward', 'how much to risk', 'loss limits', 'money management', 'portfolio risk'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (risk management) and mentions two specific actions (sizing positions, setting stop-losses), but doesn't list comprehensive concrete actions like specific rules or methods learned. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (risk management rules from competition outcomes) and when (sizing positions or setting stop-losses) with an explicit 'Use when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant trading terms like 'positions', 'stop-losses', and 'sizing' that users might say, but misses common variations like 'risk', 'loss limits', 'position size', 'risk/reward', or 'money management'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The 'competition outcomes' aspect provides some distinctiveness, but 'risk management' and 'position sizing' are fairly common trading concepts that could overlap with general trading or portfolio management skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides valuable empirical data on risk management patterns but suffers from poor organization and lack of actionable workflow. The truncated table entries and duplicate rules reduce clarity, while the absence of a decision-making process for applying these rules limits practical utility. The data is rich but the skill doesn't guide Claude on how to synthesize conflicting rules into position sizing decisions.
Suggestions
Add a workflow section explaining how to apply these rules: e.g., '1. Identify market regime, 2. Check applicable trade frequency limits, 3. Calculate position size using 2% rule, 4. Validate against 25% equity limit'
Remove or consolidate duplicate/near-duplicate rules (e.g., merge the 6 variations of 'Close losing positions proactively')
Expand truncated rule descriptions in the main table or remove the table in favor of the detailed 'Top Risk Rules' format
Add concrete code examples for position sizing calculations based on these rules
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is data-heavy with useful tables, but includes significant redundancy - many rules are near-duplicates with slight variations (e.g., multiple 'Validate risk per trade' and 'Close losing positions' entries). The truncated rule descriptions in the main table reduce utility. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete rules with specific numbers (2% equity risk, 25% position limit, trade frequency thresholds), but lacks executable code examples for implementing these rules. The 'General Guidelines' section is vague compared to the data-driven rules above. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No clear workflow for how to apply these rules when sizing positions or setting stop-losses. Rules are listed but there's no sequence, decision tree, or validation process for integrating multiple conflicting rules (e.g., which rule takes precedence?). | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Has reasonable structure with sections (Core Principles, Top Risk Rules, General Guidelines, Confidence Guide), but the main table is overwhelming with 40 truncated entries. Could benefit from linking to detailed rule explanations rather than inline expansion of top 5 rules. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
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.