comps

Trading comparables analysis with peer multiples and implied valuation

Quality

61%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/daloopa/skills/comps/SKILL.md

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 body is a well-structured, highly actionable trading-comps workflow with concrete tools, formulas, and a full report template, and it uses clean one-level-deep references for shared data-access and design-system detail. Its main weaknesses are some duplicated table specs and the absence of an explicit validation gate for the batch peer-data operation.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint before saving (e.g., verify every peer has stock prices and required fundamentals before computing medians, and confirm implied prices bracket the current price).

De-duplicate the comparables-table column spec between Section 6 and the Section 10 HTML template to save tokens and avoid drift.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is largely lean and assumes Claude's competence (concrete formulas and data fields, no basic-concept explanations), but it duplicates table-column specs between Section 6 and the Section 10 HTML template and restates the premium/discount framing, so it could be tightened further.	2 / 3
Actionability	It gives fully executable guidance: named tools (discover_companies, get_stock_prices), explicit formulas (EV = Market Cap + Total Debt − Cash; P/E = Market Cap / Net Income), a precise batch-call instruction, an exact output path, a citation format, and a complete HTML skeleton — copy-paste ready rather than pseudocode.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The 10 steps are clearly sequenced with some error-handling branches (drop failed peers, fall back for non-Daloopa peers, note data limitations), but there is no explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoint or final verification gate before saving, and the batch peer-data operation caps workflow clarity at 2 per the guidelines.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The SKILL.md acts as an overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references to sibling files (e.g., 'read ../data-access.md' and 'see ../data-access.md Section 1.5/1.7/2-3' and '../design-system.md'), keeping data-access and formatting detail appropriately split out rather than inlined into a monolithic wall.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

50%

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 to its trading-comps domain and avoids vague fluff, but it lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and omits common natural-language terms users would say. It is a competent but incomplete description rather than a strong one.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger scenarios, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for trading comps, comparable companies analysis, peer multiples, or relative/implied valuation.'

Broaden trigger-term coverage to include common variations such as 'comps', 'comparable companies', 'relative valuation', and 'peer benchmarking'.

Optionally enumerate a few more concrete actions (e.g., 'Build a peer multiples table and derive an implied valuation range') to lift specificity toward the top anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Phrases like 'Trading comparables analysis', 'peer multiples', and 'implied valuation' name the domain plus a couple of concrete output types, but the description does not enumerate multiple distinct concrete actions the way the score-3 anchor does, so it sits at 'names domain and some actions, not comprehensive'.	2 / 3
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does but provides no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should invoke it, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	'Trading comparables analysis', 'peer multiples', and 'implied valuation' are relevant domain terms, but common natural variations users would actually say (e.g., 'comps', 'comparable companies', 'relative valuation', 'peer benchmarking') are missing, so coverage is incomplete rather than strong.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The finance-valuation niche is fairly specific and unlikely to trigger unrelated skills, but with no explicit triggers it could still overlap with sibling valuation skills (e.g., DCF), matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 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: openai/plugins
Path: plugins/daloopa/skills/comps/SKILL.md
Commit: 11c74d6

Reviewed: about 9 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.