research-market-trends

Use when investigating a market trend, category narrative, industry shift, or competing interpretation from supplied or authorized research evidence.

Quality

80%

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

Quality

Content

82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A tight, well-structured instruction skill with concrete taxonomies, an output template, and explicit guardrails; it scores high on conciseness and actionability. The main gaps are the absence of an explicit validation feedback loop and a worked example.

Suggestions

Add a brief validate-fix-retry loop (e.g., 'if a claim lacks primary support, re-seek evidence before finalizing status') to push workflow_clarity to 5.

Include one short worked example row in the Discovery/Verification tables to make the output format fully copy-paste concrete.

Tighten the body below 50 lines (e.g., fold the Example invocation into the Output format section) to qualify for the simple-skill progressive-disclosure exception.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Purpose, Required inputs, Workflow, Output format, Guardrails, Quality check) earns its place, matching the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.	5 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill — explicit status labels (Verified/Partially verified/Unverified/Contradicted), a structured output template with table columns, and specific guardrails — but no fully worked example with real data filled in, keeping it just below the top anchor.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 7-step workflow is clearly sequenced with a dedicated Verify step and a final Quality-check checkpoint, but there is no explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop within the steps, so it is not a 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Content is well-organized into clearly headed, logically split sections and is self-contained with no nested references, but the body (~66 lines) slightly exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill threshold and contains no external references to signal, placing it just below the top anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

78%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, concise description with an explicit 'Use when' trigger and a clear domain niche; its main weakness is listing only one capability verb, which limits specificity. Trigger terms and completeness are well covered.

Suggestions

Add 1-2 more concrete capability verbs (e.g., 'verifies primary sources', 'synthesizes consensus') to raise specificity from a single 'investigating' action.

Include a couple of common synonyms users might say (e.g., 'market research', 'competitive analysis') to broaden natural trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('market trend, category narrative, industry shift, or competing interpretation from supplied or authorized research evidence') with one concrete action ('investigating'), but does not enumerate multiple distinct capabilities, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'Use when investigating ... from supplied or authorized research evidence' clause explicitly answers both what it does and when to trigger it with concrete phrases, matching the top anchor; it is not a 4 because the trigger guidance is concrete rather than weakly implied.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms a user would say are present ('market trend', 'industry shift', 'research evidence'), giving good keyword coverage; a few common synonyms (e.g., 'market research', 'competitive analysis') are missing, so it is not a 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche (authorized-evidence market trend verification) has distinct triggers and low conflict risk, but it could overlap with general research/analysis skills, placing it just below the clear-minimal-conflict anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: llaskin/AI-SDR-Skill-Pack
Path: skills/research-market-trends/SKILL.md
Commit: 56ebfd3

Reviewed: ~23 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.