Conciseness

The ~560-line body is mostly operational but noticeably padded: the API-usage/cost analysis appears twice ("API Usage Comparison" in Step 2 and the "Performance & Cost Optimization" section), the Phase 1-3 methodology bullets duplicate references/screening_methodology.md content in both Step 5 and Resources, and the full ~90-line markdown report template is inlined. This fits 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the efficient anchors at 4-5.

Actionability

Script invocation commands and flags (e.g., "python3 scripts/screen_dividend_stocks.py --use-finviz --top 50") are concrete and copy-paste ready, but the customization guidance is inaccurate: the cited "Line 383-388" for screen_stocks is actually at line 1052, "Line 423" for the dividend CAGR check is at line 1139, and the documented parameters (dividend_yield_min=3.5, div CAGR < 5.0) contradict the actual script (3.0 and 4.0). Per the rubric's instruction to evaluate what is written, these incorrect key details land at 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details', not the mostly-executable anchor at 4.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an upfront API-key verification checkpoint, and the Troubleshooting section provides genuine feedback loops for this batch operation (automatic rate-limit retry, "Try FMP-only method as fallback", criteria-relaxation steps), so the batch-operation cap at 3 does not apply. It is not a 5 because intermediate result validation (e.g., checking the JSON output parsed correctly or the stock count is plausible before report generation) is left implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The bundle structure is sound — references/fmp_api_guide.md, references/screening_methodology.md, and scripts/screen_dividend_stocks.py all exist and are referenced one level deep — but substantial content that belongs in those files is inlined in SKILL.md: the full report template, the detailed cost analysis, and per-phase methodology summaries that duplicate screening_methodology.md. This matches 'Some structure but could be better organized... content that should be separate is inline' rather than the well-placed-content anchor at 4.

Specificity

The description states concrete capabilities with quantified criteria — "Screen US stocks", "P/E ratio under 20, P/B ratio under 2", "yields (3% or higher)", "dividend/revenue/EPS trending up over 3 years", plus the two-stage "pre-filtering followed by FMP API for detailed analysis". It comprehensively covers what the skill does without padding, matching the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' (screening with specific valuation, yield, and growth criteria via FINVIZ/FMP) and the 'when' ("Use when user requests dividend stock screening, income portfolio ideas, or quality value stocks with strong fundamentals") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly. Not a 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and lists multiple concrete triggers rather than being merely serviceable.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present — "dividend stock screening", "income portfolio ideas", "quality value stocks with strong fundamentals" — which users would plausibly say. Common synonyms like "high-yield stocks", "dividend growth", "income investing", or "dividend picks" are missing, so it falls just short of the comprehensive-synonyms anchor at 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (US dividend value screening with named FINVIZ Elite/FMP APIs and specific thresholds) with triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. It clearly matches 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'.