Conciseness

The ~660-line body has noticeably duplicated and padded sections: the rating bands (Exceptional+/Exceptional/Strong/Above Average) are stated three times (Overview, Output, Step 5), API-key and pip-install instructions appear twice (Prerequisites and Step 1), and execution time is repeated three times. It also carries internal dev-history noise ('Phase 3', 'Phase 3.1 additions', 'Phase 4 planned', 'Last Updated: 2026-05-03') and marketing-style padding ('Key Features', 'Tested Reliability: 39/39 stocks'), matching the 2 anchor 'Noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections'. It is not a 3 because the duplication is pervasive rather than isolated, and per the guidelines time-sensitive version/date information outside a deprecated section further penalizes conciseness.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: copy-paste commands with real flags (`--universe AAPL MSFT...`, `--max-candidates 35`, `--rs-benchmark SPY`, `--disable-rs`), pip install lines, report-reading commands (`ls -lt canslim_screener_*.md | head -1`), and troubleshooting with concrete symptoms and fixes. It is not a 5 due to minor gaps: script paths are inconsistent (sometimes `skills/canslim-screener/scripts/screen_canslim.py`, sometimes bare `screen_canslim.py` after a `cd`), and the odd `--output-dir ../../../` example invites confusion; it is well above the 3 anchor because the code shown is executable, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence (verify API access → determine universe → execute script → parse results → analyze candidates → generate report) with several checkpoints: the API-key check in Step 1, the bear-market override gate before any buy recommendation, and error-recovery paths in Troubleshooting (429 retry, Finviz graceful degradation). It is not a 5 because there is no explicit post-run verification step (e.g., sanity-checking the JSON output or confirming expected API-call counts), a minor validation gap for a batch operation; it is clearly above the 3 anchor whose checkpoints are merely implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Scored against the actual bundle: all four referenced files (canslim_methodology.md, scoring_system.md, fmp_api_endpoints.md, interpretation_guide.md) exist in references/ and are one level deep, each with size, contents, and a 'when to consult' cue; scripts/ and calculators/ are documented per-file. It is not a 5 because content that belongs in references is inlined (the per-calculator scoring thresholds duplicate scoring_system.md, and the full report template bloats SKILL.md), and some bundle files (scripts/check_institutional_endpoint.py, scripts/tests/) are undocumented; it comfortably exceeds the 3 anchor given the clear signaling and navigation.

Specificity

The description names one concrete action — "Screen US stocks using William O'Neil's CANSLIM growth stock methodology" — which matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It is not a 4 because the description does not list several distinct actions (no ranking, reporting, or analysis verbs beyond screening), and not a 2 because the action named is concrete and domain-specific rather than generic.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: 'what' is "Screen US stocks using William O'Neil's CANSLIM growth stock methodology" and 'when' is a full "Use when user requests..." clause listing four concrete trigger conditions. This matches the 5 anchor ("Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases"); the 4 anchor's weaker 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural phrases users would say: "CANSLIM stock screening", "growth stock analysis", "momentum stock identification", "strong earnings and price momentum", "O'Neil's investment system". It falls short of the 5 anchor because a few natural synonyms are missing (e.g., 'stock screener', 'relative strength', 'IBD-style investing', 'breakout stocks'), while clearly exceeding the 3 anchor's 'missing common variations' level.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The CANSLIM/O'Neil framing is a clear niche with distinct triggers (methodology name, 'earnings and price momentum'), matching the 5 anchor 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'. Even though generic stock-screening skills exist, the description anchors on a named methodology, keeping overlap risk minimal rather than merely 'minor'.