Content
86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, highly actionable skill body: executable commands for all three input modes, a clear four-step workflow, and exemplary progressive disclosure into three real reference files. The only weaknesses are mild duplication of scoring detail already held in references and the absence of explicit failure-handling guidance in the workflow.
Suggestions
Trim Step 2's inline trigger formulas and scoring-criteria list, replacing them with one-line pointers to references/scoring_system.md, since that file already documents the thresholds and component weights.
Add a short failure-handling note to the Workflow (e.g., what to do when FMP_API_KEY is missing, the API call fails, or the screening pass returns zero candidates), creating an explicit feedback loop for the batch screening operation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — commands, criteria lists, and routing rules with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — but Step 2's trigger formulas ("close / previous_close >= 1.04") and scoring-criteria list partially duplicate content that lives in references/scoring_system.md and references/momentum_burst_methodology.md. That places it just below the 'every token earns its place' top anchor; it is noticeably above the mostly-efficient midpoint. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Three complete, copy-paste-ready invocations cover the common input modes (FMP universe scan, explicit symbols, offline OHLCV JSON), plus a concrete env-var export and named output artifacts. Fully executable with specific examples covering the main cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four steps (choose input mode → run screening → review output → route survivors) are clearly sequenced with commands, and Step 3's structured review plus the A/B/watch/reject routing act as verification checkpoints. However, there is no error-recovery guidance (e.g., what to do on API failure, missing key, or empty candidate sets), so it falls short of the explicit feedback-loop anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview; methodology, scoring weights, and entry/exit detail each live in a separate, verified, one-level-deep reference file, clearly signaled in the Resources section with per-file descriptions ("references/scoring_system.md - Component weights, state thresholds, and failure filters"). No nested references and no inlined bulk detail. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |