analyzing-liquidity-pools
Analyze DEX liquidity pools for TVL, volume, fees, impermanent loss, and LP profitability. Use when analyzing liquidity pools, calculating impermanent loss, or comparing DEX pools. Trigger with phrases like "analyze liquidity pool", "calculate impermanent loss", "LP returns", "pool TVL", "DEX pool metrics", or "compare pools".
84
82%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is an excellent skill description that clearly defines its domain (DEX liquidity pool analysis), lists specific capabilities, provides explicit 'Use when' guidance, and includes a comprehensive set of natural trigger phrases. It uses proper third-person voice throughout and occupies a distinct niche that minimizes conflict risk with other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: analyze TVL, volume, fees, impermanent loss, and LP profitability. These are well-defined, domain-specific capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (analyze DEX liquidity pools for TVL, volume, fees, impermanent loss, LP profitability) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause plus a 'Trigger with phrases like...' section providing concrete trigger terms). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including 'analyze liquidity pool', 'calculate impermanent loss', 'LP returns', 'pool TVL', 'DEX pool metrics', and 'compare pools'. These are terms users in the DeFi space would naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche in DeFi/DEX liquidity pool analysis with domain-specific terms like 'impermanent loss', 'LP profitability', 'TVL', and 'DEX pool metrics' that are unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill provides strong actionability with concrete, executable CLI commands covering pool analysis, IL calculation, LP returns, comparisons, and exports. However, it reads more as a feature reference than a guided workflow—steps lack validation checkpoints and the numbered list doesn't represent a true sequential process. Some content is redundant (Examples largely repeat Instructions) and the Prerequisites section includes unnecessary context for Claude.
Suggestions
Add validation checkpoints to the workflow, e.g., verify pool data freshness before analysis, confirm subgraph connectivity, or validate output before export.
Remove the Examples section or consolidate it with Instructions to eliminate redundancy—the examples repeat nearly identical commands.
Remove the Prerequisites section (Claude doesn't need to be told about Python installation or LP concepts) and trim the Resources section to only non-obvious references.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but includes some unnecessary elements: the Prerequisites section mentions 'Understanding of liquidity providing concepts' which is unnecessary for Claude, the Resources section with well-known URLs adds little value, and the Output section describes formats verbally rather than showing them. The error handling table is useful but could be tighter. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete, copy-paste ready CLI commands with specific flags, addresses, and parameters. Each step has executable examples with inline comments explaining parameter values (e.g., '# 10000 = LP position size in USD'). The commands cover the full range of use cases. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly listed and sequenced, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops. For financial analysis involving pool data from external APIs (subgraphs), there's no guidance on verifying data freshness, validating results, or handling stale/cached data beyond a brief error table mention. The numbered steps read more like a feature catalog than a true workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References `${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/implementation.md` for detailed output formats and configuration, which is good progressive disclosure. However, no bundle files are provided to verify this reference exists, and the Examples section largely duplicates the Instructions section commands. The Output section describes formats verbally when it could just point to the reference file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
3a2d27d
- 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.