optimizing-staking-rewards
Compare and optimize staking rewards across validators, protocols, and blockchains with risk assessment. Use when analyzing staking opportunities, comparing validators, calculating staking rewards, or optimizing PoS yields. Trigger with phrases like "optimize staking", "compare staking", "best staking APY", "liquid staking", "validator comparison", "staking rewards", or "ETH staking options".
87
86%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
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 a strong skill description that clearly defines its capabilities, provides explicit trigger guidance with natural user phrases, and occupies a distinct niche in blockchain staking optimization. It follows best practices by using third person voice, listing concrete actions, and including both 'Use when' and 'Trigger with' clauses.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple concrete actions: compare rewards, optimize rewards across validators/protocols/blockchains, and perform risk assessment. These are specific, actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (compare and optimize staking rewards with risk assessment) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause plus a 'Trigger with phrases' section listing specific trigger terms). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural user phrases: 'optimize staking', 'compare staking', 'best staking APY', 'liquid staking', 'validator comparison', 'staking rewards', 'ETH staking options'. These are terms users would naturally use when seeking staking advice. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive niche focused on PoS staking, validators, and staking rewards optimization. The specific domain terminology (validators, PoS yields, liquid staking, APY) makes it very unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured skill with strong actionability — every operation has concrete, executable CLI commands with realistic parameters. The main weaknesses are some redundancy between the Instructions and Examples sections, and the lack of validation/verification steps for a workflow that depends on live API data and cached fallbacks. Progressive disclosure is handled well with clear references to supporting files.
Suggestions
Remove or consolidate the Examples section with Instructions to eliminate redundant commands and improve conciseness.
Add a validation step such as a --check or --dry-run flag to verify API connectivity and data freshness before running full analyses, and include guidance on what to do when cached data is used.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Generally efficient but has some redundancy — the Examples section largely repeats commands already shown in Instructions. The Output section's example table and some explanatory text could be tightened. The inline comments explaining obvious things (e.g., '500 - minimum stake amount in tokens') add minor bloat. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides fully concrete, copy-paste-ready CLI commands for every use case — single asset comparison, position-size analysis, portfolio optimization, protocol comparison, and export. Flag usage is specific and clear with realistic examples. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are clearly sequenced from simple comparison to portfolio optimization, and the error handling table is helpful. However, there are no validation checkpoints — no step to verify API connectivity before running, no guidance on validating output correctness, and no feedback loop for when optimization suggestions seem off or data is stale from cache. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clean overview structure with well-signaled references to implementation.md and errors.md for deeper content. The main SKILL.md stays at the right level of detail with external resources clearly listed. Content is appropriately split between the overview and referenced files. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 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.