Content
63%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 is a well-sequenced, actionable portfolio-review workflow with concrete tools and validation, but it is padded with motivational philosophy and keeps all detail inlined rather than splitting reference material into separate files.
Suggestions
Trim motivational padding — the investor quotes, the '设计理念' section, and the closing '关键原则' list restate concepts and add tokens without adding capability.
Add an explicit error-recovery loop around validation, e.g. 'If verify-valuation fails or returns C-grade data, flag the holding, re-search, and re-validate before drawing conclusions.'
Move the example tables and expected-return formulas into a reference file (e.g. references/valuation-methods.md) and link to it one level deep to improve progressive disclosure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The workflow is mostly efficient with concrete tables and tool commands, but it carries motivational padding Claude does not need — investor quotes (巴菲特/李录/段永平), the '设计理念' philosophy section, and a closing '关键原则' list that restates concepts — fitting 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation.' | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | It provides executable tool calls (`tools/financial_rigor.py verify-valuation`, `three-scenario`), specific thresholds (<40%, 50-80%, 无风险利率~4%), concrete output formats, and a defined report structure — 'Mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' (some tables are blank-cell templates and the return formulas are simplified guidance). | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Seven sequenced steps (第一步–第七步) with substeps and validation checkpoints (verify-valuation, A/B/C info-grading with low-confidence labeling, mandatory conclusion questions) give 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present'; it stops short of 5 because there is no explicit validation-failure/retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is well-sectioned with clear headers and references external tools/skills, but no bundle reference files exist and all detail (example tables, formulas, principles) is inlined in one ~200-line document — matching 'Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline.' | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |