AA news-reaction-failure-analyzer
Judge whether a market FAILED to react to news favorable to a crowded speculative position — step 2 of Jason Shapiro's COT contrarian process. Consumes a cot-contrarian-detector report (or an explicit direction) plus a Claude-curated events JSON, fetches the underlying price series with a documented fallback chain, and produces a fail-closed CONFIRMED / NOT_CONFIRMED / INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE verdict using a statistically validated drift-significance test (not a naive failure-ratio, which false-confirms on pure noise). Generic beyond COT — reusable for PEAD and macro-crowding news-failure checks. Use when the user asks to check news-failure confirmation, whether a crowded market "shrugged off" good/bad news, or wants to run Shapiro step 2 on a CROWDED_LONG/CROWDED_SHORT market.
Judge whether a market FAILED to react to news favorable to a crowded speculative position — step 2 of Jason Shapiro's COT contrarian process.
As a process A 82/100 · Runs to the end — weak spots: progress reporting
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/reaction_math.py:18High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (quoted — discussed, not commanded)TestMonteCarloNullBound / Test…ull in
quoted -
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/reaction_math.py:49High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential)# {3,4,5,8}, worst at n=8; hard-gated by Test…ull). -
low Secrets in code
secret-high-entropy-tokenscripts/tests/test_reaction_math.py:602High-entropy token-like string (may be an id, hash or a credential) (test fixture / example file)class Test…ll:
fixture
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 82/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web, python) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Steps. 24 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Failures and branches. 2 branches, has a failure section
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2123 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- -31 of 2 scripts are never mentioned in SKILL.md
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 786: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 15 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 24 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 92.