backtesting-frameworks

Build robust, production-grade backtesting systems that avoid common pitfalls and produce reliable strategy performance estimates.

Quality

57%

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 ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/backtesting-frameworks/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is backtesting-frameworks in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

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 skill body is commendably concise and well-structured, but its instructions are abstract rather than actionable and it leans on a referenced file that does not exist in the bundle. Adding concrete examples and creating the missing playbook file would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Add at least one concrete, executable example (e.g., a minimal Python snippet or a specific command) for the core backtest workflow rather than only high-level directives.

Create the referenced resources/implementation-playbook.md so the progressive-disclosure pointer resolves, or remove the references until the file exists.

Insert an explicit validation/verification checkpoint into the workflow (e.g., 'After running the backtest, verify results against out-of-sample data and check for lookahead bias before reporting').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and efficient with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; sections like "Use this skill when" and "Do not use" are direct and every token earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level directives ("Define hypothesis, universe, timeframe", "Build point-in-time data pipelines", "Implement event-driven simulation") with no concrete code, commands, or executable examples, matching the anchor for minimal concrete guidance with high-level hints.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough sequence is listed (define → data pipelines → simulation → train/validation/test splits → walk-forward) but there are no explicit validation checkpoints, and backtesting is a validation-heavy operation so the rubric cap of 3 applies.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body references resources/implementation-playbook.md twice, but no resources/ bundle directory exists, so the reference is a dead end; despite otherwise clear section structure, the broken one-level-deep reference fits between minimal structure (2) and some structure (3).	2 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Description

61%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.

The description clearly identifies the backtesting niche and what it builds, but it lacks an explicit "when to use" trigger clause and frames actions as goals rather than concrete capabilities. Adding natural trigger phrases and a Use-when clause would raise it.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when building trading-strategy backtests, validating strategy performance, or running walk-forward analysis').

Replace goal-oriented phrasing with concrete capabilities the skill performs (e.g., 'Generates point-in-time backtests, walks forward through train/validation/test splits, and reports bias-adjusted performance').

Include natural synonyms users would say (e.g., 'trading strategy', 'strategy validation', 'backtest a strategy') to broaden trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Phrases like "avoid common pitfalls" and "produce reliable strategy performance estimates" name the domain with 1-2 actions, but they read as goals rather than concrete actions, matching the anchor for naming domain plus 1-2 actions without comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	It states a clear "what" (build robust backtesting systems) but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms users would say ("backtesting systems", "backtests", "strategy performance") are present, but synonyms and common variations like "trading strategy" or "strategy validation" are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Backtesting systems" and "strategy performance estimates" carve a fairly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against general quant or trading skills, sitting between the distinct (4) and somewhat-specific (3) anchors.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 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: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/backtesting-frameworks/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 21 hours 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.