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

76%

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%

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 concrete formulas and strong, checkpointed workflows, but it is verbose with redundant sections and structured as a monolithic file with a non-existent referenced example. Splitting detailed reference material into bundled files and trimming repetition would substantially improve it.

Suggestions

Move the industry-specific metric tables (Sections 5, 6, 9) and the formatting/color reference into separate bundled reference files linked from a concise overview, eliminating the triple repetition.

Either provide the referenced `examples/comps_example.xlsx` or remove the citation, since pointing to a non-existent file undermines the bundle structure.

Trim the repeated formatting checklists (Section 1, Section 7 checklist, Output Checklist) to a single canonical checklist to reduce token overhead.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The core guidance is efficient, but the body is ~640 lines with significant redundancy — industry-specific metric lists recur across Sections 5, 6, and 9 and formatting guidance is restated in multiple checklists — which could be tightened considerably.	2 / 3
Actionability	Executable, copy-paste-ready guidance throughout: concrete formulas with exact cell references (e.g., "=E7/C7", "=QUARTILE(B7:B9,3)"), a working Office JS snippet, an ASCII template layout, and specific sanity-check thresholds.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Section 7 gives a sequenced step-by-step process and the CRITICAL section adds explicit step-by-step verification checkpoints (show header layout, confirm inputs, sanity-check each section), forming clear validate-then-proceed feedback loops.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is a monolithic single SKILL.md with 11 sections and no references/scripts/assets bundles, and it cites an example file (`examples/comps_example.xlsx`) that does not exist in the bundle — a broken, unsupported reference.	1 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

82%

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 specific and distinctive with good natural trigger terms, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which the rubric caps at completeness level 2. The 'Perfect for/Not ideal for' lists provide useful framing but function as implied rather than explicit when-guidance.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' sentence stating when Claude should invoke this skill (e.g., 'Use when building comp tables, valuing public companies, or benchmarking against industry peers').

Lead with the trigger clause before the 'Perfect for/Not ideal for' lists so the when-guidance is unambiguous.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Build institutional-grade comparable company analyses with operating metrics, valuation multiples, and statistical benchmarking in Excel/spreadsheet format" lists multiple concrete, specific actions rather than vague language.	3 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does, but there is no explicit "Use when..." clause; the "Perfect for / Not ideal for" lists imply the when rather than stating it directly, so per the rubric guideline a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural user-facing terms are well covered: "comparable company analyses", "valuation", "M&A", "IPOs or funding rounds", "benchmarking", "Excel/spreadsheet" — the kinds of phrases a user would actually say.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is clearly defined — institutional-grade comp analysis in spreadsheet form with statistical benchmarking — and the trigger terms are unlikely to conflict with unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 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: eb0c1ea

Reviewed: about 13 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.