Content
75%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.
The body is a compact, well-structured instruction-only skill: authoritative data sources with URLs, three concrete analysis frameworks, a copy-ready report template, and enforced discipline rules with validation-like checkpoints. It stays lean and assumes Claude's competence throughout. Remaining gaps are the vague market-data source, checkpoints not inlined into the workflow, and some repetition of the sourcing rules.
Suggestions
Name one or two concrete free market-data endpoints (or an example EDGAR API query with the required User-Agent header) instead of the vague "公开行情接口(稳定性有限)".
Inline the validation checkpoints into the workflow itself — e.g., after data acquisition add an explicit "verify each key number has source + date before analysis" step, rather than keeping all checks in the separate 纪律性守则 section.
Consolidate the repeated source/date-disclosure rules (sections 1.2, 2.3, template header, and 4) into one authoritative statement to save tokens, and give the research-protocol dependency a clear path or link.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and efficient — tables of named sources, numbered framework steps, and a template, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (DCF and PE/PB/PS are only named, not taught). Not 5 because the source/date-disclosure rule is repeated in section 1.2, section 2.3, the template header, and section 4, and the disclaimer appears in both the header blockquote and the template. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Mostly concrete and executable: a specific SEC EDGAR URL with the User-Agent caveat, named data sources (cninfo, 国家统计局, 央行), specific metrics (毛利率/净利率, CR3/CR5, PEST/波特五力), and a copy-ready report template. Not 5 because "实时行情:公开行情接口(稳定性有限)" is vague with no named API, and there is no example EDGAR query despite the URL being given. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence (数据获取 → 分析框架 → 输出报告 → 纪律守则) with real checkpoints present: failed-data handling ("拿不到就明说'该数据未能获取'"), mandatory source verification, and the adversarial 逆向检查 rule. Not 5 because these checkpoints live in a separate rules section instead of being woven into the workflow steps as inline validation points; not 3 because validation is clearly present, not absent. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-organized single file (~82 lines) with numbered sections and subsections; nothing inlined clearly belongs in a separate file, and there are no nested references. Not 5 because the body exceeds the under-50-lines simple-skill case and the research-protocol dependency is only mentioned in a top blockquote without a path or link, making navigation to it unclear. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |