analyzing-financial-statements

This skill calculates key financial ratios and metrics from financial statement data for investment analysis

Quality

55%

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 ./skills/custom_skills/analyzing-financial-statements/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%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 body is well-organized and token-efficient, but it lacks executable guidance — scripts are named without invocations or code — and its workflow has no explicit validation checkpoint. The referenced script files also do not exist in a bundle, weakening navigation.

Suggestions

Show concrete invocations for the scripts (e.g. `python calculate_ratios.py --input statements.json --ratios all`) or include a short executable code snippet so the guidance is copy-paste ready.

Insert an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g. 'Validate data completeness; only proceed to calculation when all required line items are present').

Either bundle the referenced calculate_ratios.py and interpret_ratios.py under scripts/ and link them, or remove the dangling references so navigation matches the actual bundle.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly tight bullet lists (Capabilities, Input/Output Format, Best Practices, Limitations) with no padding about concepts Claude already knows; only the intro line 'comprehensive financial ratio analysis for evaluating company performance...' is slightly trimmable, keeping it just below the fully-lean score 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	It names scripts ('calculate_ratios.py', 'interpret_ratios.py') but gives no invocation, arguments, imports, or executable code, and the 'How to Use' steps are high-level hints ('Provide financial statement data', 'Select Ratios') without the specific steps to execute — matching the 'minimal concrete guidance, missing specific steps' anchor rather than the incomplete-pseudocode score 3.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough sequence exists (Input Data → Select Ratios → Interpretation) and Best Practices mentions 'validate data completeness before calculations', but validation is a suggestion rather than an explicit checkpoint in the flow, fitting the 'steps listed but validation gaps, checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor; it does not reach a 4 because there is no concrete validate-then-proceed step.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are clearly organized, but the 'Scripts' section references calculate_ratios.py and interpret_ratios.py that are not present in any scripts/ bundle directory, so the references are dangling and not clearly signaled against an actual bundle — placing it at 'some structure, references present but not clearly signaled' rather than the well-placed score 4.	3 / 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 states what the skill does and uses appropriate third-person voice with good natural keywords, but it omits any explicit 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness. Adding a trigger clause naming concrete user phrases would lift both completeness and trigger-term coverage.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when analyzing financial statements, evaluating company performance, or computing investment ratios.'

Name a few concrete ratio groups in the description (e.g. profitability, liquidity, valuation) to raise specificity beyond a single generic 'calculates' action.

Include common synonyms or file types users mention ('financials', '10-K', 'balance sheet') to push trigger-term coverage toward comprehensive.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes 'calculates key financial ratios and metrics from financial statement data' name the domain and a concrete action, but only a single generic action ('calculates') with no enumeration of which ratios — matching the 'domain + 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the multi-action score 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'what' is clear ('calculates key financial ratios and metrics') but there is no 'Use when...' trigger clause, and the judging guidelines explicitly cap completeness at 3 when such trigger guidance is missing; 'for investment analysis' is only a weak implication of 'when', not a 4-level explicit trigger.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say — 'financial ratios', 'financial statement data', 'investment analysis' — give good keyword coverage, falling just short of the comprehensive-synonyms anchor (5) because synonyms like 'financials', 'fundamentals', or file types are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche — financial-ratio calculation from statement data for investment analysis — is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against a generic data-analysis skill; it lacks the explicit distinct triggers that would warrant a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: anthropics/anthropic-cookbook
Path: skills/custom_skills/analyzing-financial-statements/SKILL.md
Commit: d7265d6

Reviewed: 1 day 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.