Content
80%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 compact, well-structured skill body that routes MCP tools into a clear analysis workflow with concrete output tables. Main improvement area is adding explicit validation/recovery checkpoints for fragile numerical steps.
Suggestions
Add a validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., confirm G-spread and credit-curve interpolations are sane before computing residual, or flag when residual is outside historical bounds).
Include one concrete example of tool-call arguments or a worked numerical example for the spread decomposition table to lift actionability to fully copy-paste ready.
Tighten the 'Core Principles' paragraph by removing the re-derivation of why residual matters, since the workflow already demonstrates it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean and efficient — tool list, chaining workflow, and output tables assume Claude's competence without explaining bond fundamentals. Minor over-explanation in 'Core Principles' restates spread-decomposition rationale that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete tool names, accepted identifiers, two-phase usage patterns, and explicit scenario shift values (-100bp to +100bp) give executable guidance. Lacks full sample tool-call syntax/arguments, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear six-step numbered sequence with explicit per-step tool routing and an optional step flagged. Missing explicit validation checkpoints or error-recovery feedback loops, though the synthesis step provides a soft checkpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized single-file skill under 50 lines with clear sections (principles, tools, workflow, output format) and no external references needed; for a compact skill this structure earns the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |