stock-analysis

Produce a rigorous, sector-relative, multi-factor fundamental analysis of a publicly listed company — Indian (NSE/BSE) or US/global. Use when the user asks to analyse, research, evaluate, or value a stock, ticker, or listed company; asks whether a business is fundamentally strong, cheap, or expensive; compares companies or benchmarks one against its sector; or mentions OPM, ROCE, ROE, ROIC, P/E, EV/EBITDA, free cash flow, NIM, GNPA, CASA, promoter holding or pledging. Use it for accounting-quality and forensic questions — "is the profit real", "why is profit rising but cash isn't", auditor qualifications, related-party concerns — which route to the forensic-only mode, and for IPOs and not-yet-listed companies — "should I apply to this IPO", DRHP/RHP or S-1 questions, price band, grey market premium — which route to the IPO mode. Use it even when the request sounds casual ("is Infosys any good?"). Do not use it for personalised investment advice, portfolio allocation, or trading signals.

Quality

90%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

—

The risk profile of this skill

Quality

Content

81%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.

A well-structured, methodology-driven skill body with an explicit multi-stage workflow, strong validation gates, and clean progressive disclosure into references and scripts. The main weaknesses are minor repetition of the sourcing rule, two dangling example-file references, and a largely procedural (rather than directly executable) analytical core.

Suggestions

Create the referenced examples/ directory with standard-analysis-example.md and forensic-analysis-example.md, or remove the Stage 8 instruction to read them before writing.

Consolidate the 'aggregators are navigation aids, filings are the source' rule into a single canonical statement and back-reference it, instead of restating it in Non-negotiables, Official records, and Stage 1.

Tighten the opening 'principle' X/Y illustration to one or two sentences so the skill reaches its procedural workflow sooner.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Largely lean and assumes Claude's competence (no 'what is a P/E' padding), but the aggregator-is-navigation-not-source rule is restated three times and the opening X/Y software-vs-distribution illustration is illustrative framing that could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete copy-paste commands ('python scripts/verify_data.py <intake>.json', '--template', '--help'), a sector router table mapping company types to specific playbooks, and a concrete output naming convention, though the bulk of analytical guidance is procedural direction into references rather than inline executable steps.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Stages 0–10 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops — the recency gate, 'Fix every error-level finding before proceeding' for verify_data.py, and the blocking lint_report.py gate — plus escalation rules and a depth-mode selection table.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear overview with a reference-index table and one-level-deep references that are well signaled, but Stage 8 points to examples/standard-analysis-example.md and examples/forensic-analysis-example.md which do not exist, leaving two broken navigation links.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

100%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.

This is an exemplary description: it states a concrete capability, gives comprehensive natural-language and technical triggers, explicitly answers both 'what' and 'when', and boundaries itself against adjacent skills. Third-person voice is maintained throughout.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Produce a rigorous, sector-relative, multi-factor fundamental analysis', benchmarking 'one against its sector', and routing to forensic/IPO modes — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('Produce a rigorous, sector-relative, multi-factor fundamental analysis') and when ('Use when the user asks to analyse...'), and adds an explicit 'Do not use it for...' boundary clause.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Covers natural user phrasings ('analyse, research, evaluate, or value a stock', 'is the profit real', 'is Infosys any good?', 'should I apply to this IPO') alongside technical synonyms and acronyms (OPM, ROCE, ROE, ROIC, P/E, EV/EBITDA, NIM, GNPA, CASA, DRHP/RHP, S-1).	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche (fundamental analysis of listed companies) with distinct metric-based triggers, forensic/IPO routing, an explicit exclusion clause, and cross-references distinguishing it from adjacent financial skills.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 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
referenced_paths_exist	Referenced path issues: 27 deeper-than-1-level	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Path: finance/skills/stock-analysis/SKILL.md
Commit: 19392f7

Reviewed: ~3 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.