Content
86%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.
A tight, well-structured research skill: lean prose, a concrete quality checklist, a defined recommendation scale, and an explicit output contract with a mandatory closing disclaimer. Its only weaknesses are the absence of a worked example (sample market source, sample output) and explicit validation steps such as a staleness re-check before recommending a signal.
Suggestions
Add a brief worked example to the Output Contract section — one real market snapshot (question, venue, implied probability, timestamp, link) and a sample 'usable/weak/unsuitable' verdict — so the abstract sections become concrete.
Add an explicit validation step before step 6 (e.g., re-check that probabilities and liquidity figures are current and sources resolve before issuing the recommendation) to close the workflow's missing feedback loop.
Name a few concrete starting venues or source types (e.g., established CFTC-regulated exchanges, aggregator APIs, on-chain venues) so 'find relevant markets, events, tags, and venues' has concrete execution detail.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient throughout: it never explains what prediction markets are or other concepts Claude already knows, and every section (Guardrails, Workflow, Integration Patterns, Output Contract) earns its place, matching anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: a concrete signal-quality checklist (liquidity, spread, market age, resolution authority), a defined recommendation scale ('usable, weak, or unsuitable'), and exact output sections plus a verbatim disclaimer line. Minor gaps — no worked example or concrete venue/API pointers keep it below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step sequence with an embedded quality-evaluation checkpoint in step 4, but no explicit validation/feedback loop (e.g., re-checking staleness or liquidity before finalizing the recommendation), matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's explicit validation with error recovery. The destructive/batch cap of 3 does not apply since the workflow is read-only research. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist and none are needed for this short, single-purpose skill; the body is organized into clear sections (Guardrails, Research Workflow, Integration Patterns, Output Contract) and its one cross-skill reference to llm-trading-agent-security is clearly signaled, so the simple-skill exception applies. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |