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 well-organized and lean, but it offers no concrete risk-metric formulas, code, or validation steps, and its single external reference points to a file that is not present in the bundle.
Suggestions
Add concrete, executable guidance — e.g., VaR/CVaR formulas, a pandas code snippet, or specific library calls — instead of generic 'apply best practices' instructions.
Provide the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or fix the path to match the actual bundle location) so the progressive-disclosure pointer resolves to real content.
Replace the vague 'validate outcomes' step with explicit checkpoints for risk calculations, such as verifying return-series alignment, confidence-level sanity, and drawdown consistency.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no concept over-explanation, though the 'Do not use this skill when' bullets ('unrelated to risk metrics calculation', 'a different domain or tool outside this scope') are generic filler that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | There is no executable code, formulas, or concrete commands — the Instructions are abstract boilerplate ('Clarify goals', 'Apply relevant best practices', 'Provide actionable steps and verification') and the referenced playbook does not exist in the bundle. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is present and validation is mentioned ('validate outcomes'), but the steps are generic process advice with no explicit checkpoints or feedback loops tied to risk calculation. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Section structure is clear and a one-level reference is signaled, but the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` is absent from the bundle (no references/scripts/assets directories), leaving the navigation dangling. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |