Content
75%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.
The body delivers a highly actionable, clearly sequenced workflow backed by a well-organized bundle whose references are real, clearly signaled, and one level deep. Its main weaknesses are redundancy — the contrarian-mode rules and output contract appear both inline and in the checklist reference — and verbose example walkthroughs that inflate token cost without adding guidance Claude could not infer.
Suggestions
Trim the Contrarian Confirmation Mode section to a short summary (purpose, inputs, activation trigger, output contract pointer) and delegate the three checks, veto, swing-level rules, and full YAML contract entirely to references/contrarian-confirmation-checklist.md, which already contains them.
Reduce the three Example Usage Scenarios to one representative example (or drop the section) — they restate the numbered workflow steps already specified above.
List scripts/weekly_price_action.py and the scripts/tests/ suite in the Resources section so the full bundle structure is discoverable from SKILL.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The core workflow is structured without tutorial padding, but the Contrarian Confirmation section restates the three checks, veto, and swing rules that references/contrarian-confirmation-checklist.md holds in full, and the three Example walkthroughs plus instructions like 'Confirm receipt of all chart images' could be trimmed — matching 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste script invocations with flags (--symbol, --direction, --detector-json, --as-of, --output-dir), concrete 20/50/200-week MA specifications, probability ranges that must sum to 100%, a required six-field scenario structure, exact file-naming conventions with an example, and explicit Read directives for the framework and template. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–6 are clearly sequenced with explicit sequential per-chart processing ('Do not batch analyses'), validation checkpoints (probabilities must sum to 100%, fail-closed INSUFFICIENT_DATA behavior, the conservative disagreement rule), and quality checklists — but there is no explicit error-recovery loop for degraded chart inputs (e.g., an unreadable or ambiguous image), leaving a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Structure is good and all referenced paths verified to exist as one-level-deep bundle files (references/technical_analysis_framework.md, references/contrarian-confirmation-checklist.md, assets/analysis_template.md, scripts/check_weekly_price_action.py) with a dedicated Resources section — but the contrarian check definitions and full YAML output contract are duplicated inline instead of delegated to the checklist, and scripts/weekly_price_action.py plus scripts/tests/ are unlisted in Resources. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |