tdg-personal/investor-materials
Create and update pitch decks, one-pagers, investor memos, accelerator applications, financial models, and fundraising materials. Use when the user needs investor-facing documents, projections, use-of-funds tables, milestone plans, or materials that must stay internally consistent across multiple fundraising assets.
85
85%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong, well-crafted skill description that clearly defines its domain (fundraising materials), lists specific concrete deliverables, and includes an explicit 'Use when' clause with natural trigger terms. The description is concise yet comprehensive, uses third-person voice correctly, and carves out a distinct niche that would be easily distinguishable from general presentation or document skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'pitch decks, one-pagers, investor memos, accelerator applications, financial models, and fundraising materials' along with specific outputs like 'projections, use-of-funds tables, milestone plans'. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (create and update pitch decks, one-pagers, investor memos, etc.) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' clause specifying investor-facing documents, projections, use-of-funds tables, milestone plans, and internal consistency across fundraising assets. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural terms users would say: 'pitch decks', 'one-pagers', 'investor memos', 'accelerator applications', 'financial models', 'fundraising materials', 'investor-facing documents', 'projections', 'use-of-funds tables', 'milestone plans'. These are all terms founders and startup teams naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Occupies a clear niche around fundraising and investor-facing materials. The specific terms like 'pitch decks', 'investor memos', 'accelerator applications', and 'use-of-funds tables' are highly distinctive and unlikely to conflict with general document or presentation skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a well-structured, concise skill that covers a broad domain without unnecessary verbosity. Its main weakness is the lack of concrete examples—template snippets, sample tables, or output formats—that would make the guidance immediately executable rather than descriptive. The workflow and validation steps are present but could be strengthened with explicit feedback loops and recovery paths.
Suggestions
Add concrete template examples: a sample use-of-funds markdown table, a one-pager skeleton, or a financial model assumptions table that Claude can directly adapt.
Strengthen the cross-check step in the core workflow with an explicit feedback loop: e.g., 'If any number disagrees with the source of truth, list all discrepancies, resolve each, then re-run the check before delivering.'
Consider splitting detailed asset guidance (financial model, accelerator applications) into separate referenced files to improve progressive disclosure for this multi-asset skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient throughout. It avoids explaining what pitch decks or financial models are, assumes Claude's competence with these concepts, and every section adds actionable value without padding. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides clear structural guidance (e.g., pitch deck flow, financial model components, quality gate checklist) but lacks concrete executable examples—no sample markdown tables for use-of-funds, no template snippets for one-pagers, no example financial model structure. It describes what to include rather than showing it. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The core workflow is sequenced (steps 1-5) and the quality gate serves as a validation checkpoint, but the cross-checking step lacks explicit feedback loops—there's no 'if mismatch found, do X' recovery path. The 'stop and resolve' instruction for conflicts is good but the overall workflow lacks concrete validation mechanisms. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is well-organized with clear sections and headers, and there's one reference to a companion skill (`frontend-slides`). However, for a skill covering 6+ distinct asset types, some content (e.g., detailed financial model guidance, accelerator application tips) could be split into separate reference files rather than kept inline. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
Reviewed
Table of Contents