Conciseness

The body is efficient overall — copy-paste command blocks, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and operational details (exit codes, fallback endpoints) that Claude could not know. The one trimmable instance: the ZERO_RESULT_REASON semantics for 'earnings_calendar_empty_with_market_sessions' and 'market_calendar_unavailable' are stated nearly verbatim in both the 'Degraded endpoint' section and the 'Empty windows and today-only runs' section, which could be consolidated. That is minor over-explanation (anchor 4), not the noticeably padded or redundant profile of anchor 3.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: four copy-paste bash invocations covering the common cases (default run, custom filters, deterministic --as-of, entry filter), a concrete retry command with specific flag values, a ready curl fallback against the real endpoint, and an explicit presentation checklist plus numeric grade thresholds. This matches 'fully executable; copy-paste ready; covers the common cases' rather than anchor 4, which permits minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence is backed by explicit validation and feedback loops: failure semantics are defined per exit reason (ZERO_RESULT_REASON values), the degraded-endpoint path prescribes retry-with-narrower-config then a labeled ungraded fallback, and the no-candidate pitfall tells the agent exactly what not to do (no PEAD Mode B from a nonexistent file) and how to label results. This matches anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery' and exceeds anchor 4, whose checkpoints would be present but incomplete.

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md is a genuine overview: scoring methodology is split out to the one-level-deep reference 'references/scoring_methodology.md' (verified to exist), signaled both in Step 2 ('Load references/scoring_methodology.md for scoring interpretation context') and in a Resources section, while the scripts bundle (per-factor calculators, tests) is navigable via the command paths. No monolithic inline reference material and no nested references, matching the top anchor.

Specificity

Concrete actions are enumerated comprehensively: 'Analyze recent post-earnings stocks using a 5-factor scoring system (Gap Size, Pre-Earnings Trend, Volume Trend, MA200 Position, MA50 Position)', 'Scores each stock 0-100 and assigns A/B/C/D grades' — the mechanism, scale, output format, and every factor are explicit. This matches the top anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage) and exceeds anchor 4, which allows coverage gaps; nothing here is generic.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: 'what' — analyze post-earnings stocks via a named 5-factor system, score 0-100, assign A/B/C/D grades — and 'when' — 'Use when user asks about earnings trade analysis, post-earnings momentum screening, earnings gap scoring, or finding best recent earnings reactions.' This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure (concrete capability statement followed by explicit 'Use when...' trigger phrases) and is clearly above anchor 4, where the 'when' clause would be less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present ('earnings trade analysis', 'post-earnings momentum screening', 'earnings gap scoring', 'finding best recent earnings reactions'), giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of anchor 5 because a few natural synonyms users would say are missing — e.g. 'PEAD' / 'post-earnings accumulation day' (which the skill body itself lists as a use case) and 'earnings report'/'after-earnings' variants — so it is not the 'comprehensive coverage including synonyms' anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (post-earnings 5-factor momentum scoring) with distinct, domain-locked trigger terms that no generic screening or analysis skill would claim, matching 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'. Not anchor 4 because there is no realistic overlap with a closely related skill's triggers.