Content
50%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 reasonable overview with a clear focus-area list, a sequenced approach, and one concrete formula, but it is held back by templated boilerplate sections, mostly high-level guidance lacking executable specifics (no sizing/Kelly/VaR math), absent validation checkpoints, and a dangling reference to a nonexistent `resources/implementation-playbook.md`.
Suggestions
Remove or replace the generic "Use/Do not use this skill when" and Instructions boilerplate with domain-specific content (e.g., actual risk-per-trade percentages, a position-sizing formula, the Kelly criterion equation).
Fix the dangling reference: either ship `resources/implementation-playbook.md` or delete the pointer to it, and signal any remaining references with markdown links.
Add at least one validation checkpoint to the Approach sequence (e.g., verify that total portfolio heat from open positions stays under a stated risk budget).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The Focus Areas, Approach, and Output sections are dense and earn their tokens, but the templated "Use this skill when / Do not use this skill when" and generic Instructions bullets ("Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes") add no information Claude doesn't already have. Not 4 because that boilerplate padding is noticeable, not minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Some genuinely concrete guidance exists — the expectancy formula "(Win% × Avg Win) - (Loss% × Avg Loss)" and the "1R = max loss" definition — but most steps are high-level directives ("Size positions based on account risk percentage", "Monitor correlations to avoid concentration") with no percentages, formulas, thresholds, or worked examples. Not 4 because key executable details (Kelly formula, sizing math, VaR method) are missing; not 2 because the formula and R-definition are directly usable. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Approach section lists a coherent 7-step sequence (define R → track → expectancy → size → monitor → hedge → document), but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops — "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes" is boilerplate, not a checkpoint. Not 4 because sequence is present but checkpoints are missing or only implicit. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Sections are well organized and the body is short, but the single external reference — "open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`" — points to a file that does not exist in the bundle (no resources/ directory), a dead-end navigation path. Not 4 because a clearly signaled but broken reference undermines the structure; not 2 because the inline content is short and appropriately placed. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |