CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

multi-factor

Multi-factor cross-sectional stock ranking. Combines factor standardization, equal-weight or IC-weighted scoring, and TopN portfolio construction. Suitable for multi-instrument portfolio strategies.

60

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./a_全网优秀资源/10_大模型/07_skill包/vibe_trading_skills/multi-factor/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is concise and well-structured with useful tables and pitfalls, but the core strategy is presented as described steps rather than executable code, and the rebalancing workflow lacks validation checkpoints. These cap actionability and workflow clarity at the mid level.

Suggestions

Provide a copy-paste-ready pandas/numpy implementation of the standardize-and-rank pipeline so the skill is executable, not just described.

Add an explicit validation/checkpoint step in the rebalance workflow (e.g. assert >=3 stocks before Z-scoring, verify weights sum to 1) to support the batch operation.

Clarify factor-direction alignment with a concrete transformation step (negate negative-direction factors before standardization) rather than only flagging it as a pitfall.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and table-driven with no padding explaining basic concepts Claude already knows; every section (Signal Logic, Built-In Factors, Parameters, Pitfalls) earns its tokens, matching the 'lean and efficient' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

It gives concrete factor definitions and parameter defaults but the strategy itself is described in prose steps rather than executable code — only 'pip install pandas numpy' is runnable — fitting 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable code'.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The four-step Signal Logic is sequenced, but there are no validation/verification checkpoints, and portfolio rebalancing is a batch operation where the guidelines say missing feedback loops cap workflow clarity at 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A short, single-purpose skill (~50 lines) with no external references and well-organized sections satisfies the simple-skill carve-out that progressive disclosure can score 3 on organization alone.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 occupies a clear niche, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and leans on technical jargon over natural user phrasing. This caps completeness and trigger-term quality at the mid level.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural user triggers, e.g. 'Use when ranking stocks by multiple factors, building factor-based portfolios, or when the user asks for multi-factor / cross-sectional stock selection.'

Soften jargon in the trigger portion — alongside 'IC-weighted' and 'TopN', include plain terms users actually say like 'stock ranking', 'factor scoring', and 'portfolio construction'.

Keep the concise concrete action list but ensure the closing clause signals activation conditions rather than only stating suitability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions — 'Combines factor standardization, equal-weight or IC-weighted scoring, and TopN portfolio construction' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor rather than the single-action level 2.

3 / 3

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' but only implies 'when' via 'Suitable for multi-instrument portfolio strategies' — no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 2.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain terms ('multi-factor', 'stock ranking', 'portfolio') are present, but jargon like 'cross-sectional', 'IC-weighted scoring', and 'TopN' lean technical and common user-facing variations are missing, so it sits at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' rather than full coverage.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The multi-factor quant ranking niche is clearly distinct with triggers unlikely to overlap with other skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers' anchor; it is not generic enough for level 2.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
charliedream1/ai_quant_trade
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.