comps-analysis

Build institutional-grade comparable company analyses with operating metrics, valuation multiples, and statistical benchmarking in Excel/spreadsheet format. **Perfect for:** - Public company valuation (M&A, investment analysis) - Benchmarking performance vs. industry peers - Pricing IPOs or funding rounds - Identifying valuation outliers (over/under-valued) - Supporting investment committee presentations - Creating sector overview reports **Not ideal for:** - Private companies without comparable public peers - Highly diversified conglomerates - Distressed/bankrupt companies - Pre-revenue startups - Companies with unique business models

Quality

78%

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 ./plugins/agent-plugins/market-researcher/skills/comps-analysis/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

70%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 content is highly actionable with a clear, well-validated workflow, but it is too long and repetitive — three sections repeat industry-specific metric guidance and a formula reference section duplicates earlier examples. It also fails to split material into bundle files and references a non-existent example file.

Suggestions

Consolidate the three overlapping industry-metric sections (Section 5, the Section 6 'Industry-Specific Modifications' block, and Section 9) into one place to remove repetition.

Remove or slim Section 11 (Formulas Reference Guide) since the same formulas already appear in Sections 2-3, keeping only genuinely novel entries.

Move the full formula reference and per-industry addenda into reference files under references/, and either provide the referenced examples/comps_example.xlsx or remove the broken reference.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is noticeably verbose (~640 lines): Section 5 (Choosing the Right Metrics), Section 9 (Industry-Specific Additions), and the 'Industry-Specific Modifications' block all repeat overlapping industry guidance, and Section 11's Formulas Reference Guide duplicates formulas already shown in Sections 2-3, with multiple redundant checklists (Excel Formatting, Output, Continuous Improvement).	2 / 5
Actionability	It provides fully executable, copy-paste-ready guidance: concrete Excel formulas (=E7/C7, =QUARTILE(B7:B9,3), =MEDIAN), an Office JS snippet, openpyxl instructions, exact hex colors, citation examples, and a full template layout diagram covering the common cases.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	It gives a clear sequenced 6-step process (Section 7) with explicit validation checkpoints ('Verify step-by-step with the user': show header layout, confirm inputs, sanity-check margins, confirm multiples), plus sanity checks, a QC step, and an output checklist — including a 'do NOT build end-to-end then present' feedback loop.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	It has reasonable in-document structure (numbered sections and headers), but all content is inlined in one ~640-line file with no bundle files, and the one reference it makes (examples/comps_example.xlsx) points to a file that does not exist; the formula reference and industry addenda would fit better as separate files.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

87%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 is strong: third-person voice, clearly states what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete trigger use-cases and explicit anti-triggers that bound the niche. Minor improvement is possible by adding common synonyms ('comps', 'trading comps', 'peer analysis') and file extensions.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('comparable company analyses') and lists several concrete building-block actions ('operating metrics, valuation multiples, and statistical benchmarking in Excel/spreadsheet format'), with minor gaps in coverage of the build actions themselves.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both 'what' (build institutional-grade comp analyses with operating metrics, valuation multiples, statistical benchmarking) and 'when' via the explicit 'Perfect for:' trigger list, plus anti-triggers in 'Not ideal for:'.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes good natural phrases users would say ('Public company valuation (M&A)', 'Benchmarking performance vs. industry peers', 'Pricing IPOs or funding rounds', 'investment committee presentations'), but omits common synonyms like 'comps', 'trading comps', 'peer analysis', and file extensions.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Comparable company analyses' is a distinct finance niche with specialized triggers (M&A, IPO/funding pricing, investment committee), and the 'Not ideal for:' boundary list further sharpens it against adjacent skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 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
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (662 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: anthropics/financial-services
Path: plugins/agent-plugins/market-researcher/skills/comps-analysis/SKILL.md
Commit: 69cbc81

Reviewed: 3 days 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.