Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes domain competence — setup-family definitions, CLI modes, and output contracts are stated without padding, and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because the closing "Shared FMP client" section carries implementation/changelog-style detail ("masks raw and URL-encoded key echoes, retries malformed JSON once, and retries a 429 at most once, after a 60-second wait") that is operational trivia better trimmed or moved into a reference, so not every token earns its place.

Actionability

Four complete, copy-paste-ready CLI invocations cover all three input modes (FMP universe, explicit symbols, offline JSON) plus the quote-override variant, with concrete flags, output filenames, and a per-rating downstream routing table. It is not below 5: the commands are executable as written and the common cases are each represented by a specific example.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–4 are clearly sequenced, and the batch screening operation does include checkpoints — Step 3 requires reading the reports and surfacing "reject reasons" per candidate, and Step 4 gates A/A- candidates on manual chart, earnings, and news validation — so the batch-operation cap at 3 does not apply. It is not a 5 because validation is review-oriented rather than an explicit validate/fix/retry loop: there is no guidance for error recovery when a run fails, returns zero candidates, or hits the API-call budget.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview — workflow, modes, output contract — with all detail correctly split into three real, substantive, one-level-deep reference files clearly signaled in the Resources section (methodology, scoring system, near-close operations), and both referenced scripts exist in the bundle. Verified against the actual bundle structure, no reference chains nest further and no clearly-separate content is inlined, matching the top anchor.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete, domain-specific method components — "prior momentum, pullback depth, undercut/reclaim, long lower-wick geometry, close-location, volume confirmation, quality/liquidity gates, and risk-distance scoring" — leaving no vague filler. It sits between anchors 4 and 5: coverage of the screening method is comprehensive, but the capability is expressed through one primary action verb ("Screen US stocks") with a criteria list rather than multiple distinct user-facing actions, and terms like "close-location" lack plain-language glossing, a minor gap.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is stated concretely ("Screen US stocks for Stockbee-style selling-exhaustion hammer setups using...") and the "when" is explicit with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when the user asks for..."). This directly parallels the rubric's 5-anchor example structure and clearly exceeds the 4 anchor, where the 'when' is present but less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

The "Use when" clause covers natural phrasings users would actually say, including author-name synonyms: "Stockbee, Pradeep Bonde, exhaustion setup, selling exhaustion, hammer reversal, undercut reclaim, near-close reversal candidates, or pullback entries in high-quality funds-owned stocks." This matches the top anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage; no common variant of the request is obviously missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (Stockbee/Bonde-style selling-exhaustion hammer screening) with distinctly branded triggers ("Stockbee", "Pradeep Bonde", "undercut reclaim") that are unlikely to fire for unrelated technical-screening or general-analysis skills. It is not below the 5 anchor because the trigger set is specific enough that overlap risk with generic stock-screener skills is minimal.