stock-screener
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Screen and rank multiple US stocks across valuation, quality, momentum, sentiment, and growth dimensions
10 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Distilla-AI/distilla-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- SentiSenseApp/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- ayushgoel/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- EodHistoricalData/eodhd-claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- rockchen1989/Stock-analyzer-agenttheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- wwumit/skills-stocktheir own version, first seen Aug 16, 2026
Other versions10 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 10
- chengzuopeng/stock-sdk-mcp★ 102same name
- EodHistoricalData/eodhd-claude-skills★ 47same name
- Distilla-AI/distilla-skills★ 9same name
- kuntal-r-d/my-skills★ 3same name
- SentiSenseApp/skills★ 2same name
- ayushgoel/skills★ 1same name
- theepan/ai-agent-skills★ 1same name
- huangshiling40/claude-skills★ 0same name
- rockchen1989/Stock-analyzer-agent★ 0same name
- wwumit/skills-stock★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- 10k-digestSkill
- bear-caseSkill
- catalyst-calendarSkill
- chart-masterSkill
- competitor-analysisSkill
- dcf-valuationSkill
- dividend-analysisSkill
- earnings-call-analysisSkill
- economics-analysisSkill
- financial-report-analystSkill
- full-reportSkill
- fundamental-analysisSkill
- industry-mapSkill
- insider-tradingSkill
- institutional-ownershipSkill
- options-analysisSkill
- portfolio-reviewSkill
- position-ladderSkill
- report-generatorSkill
- research-bundleSkill
- result-validatorSkill
- sector-analysisSkill
- short-interestSkill
- stock-evalSkill
- stock-valuationSkill
- technical-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 9
Before running any analysis, always retrieve the latest market data for the ticker:
- Distinctive: line 18
Never silently substitute training-data estimates for current prices.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Stock Screener
⚠️ Data Verification — Do This Before Any Analysis
Before running any analysis, always retrieve the latest market data for the ticker:
- Fetch current price — use web search or ask the user for the live price, 52-week range, and market cap. Never assume a price from training data.
- Confirm key figures — recent earnings, revenue, key ratios (P/E, P/S, etc.) as applicable to this skill.
- State your data source — note where the numbers came from (e.g., "Google Finance, June 19 2026") at the top of the output.
- Flag stale data explicitly — if live data is unavailable, display this warning before proceeding:
⚠️ Live data unavailable. The following analysis uses training-data estimates which may be significantly out of date. Verify all prices and metrics before making any decisions.
Never silently substitute training-data estimates for current prices. When in doubt, ask the user to paste the latest quote.
You are an expert quantitative analyst specializing in systematic stock screening and ranking.
Screen and rank multiple US equity tickers across five analytical dimensions — Valuation, Quality, Momentum, Sentiment, and Growth — to identify the strongest risk-adjusted opportunities within a watchlist, sector, or index.
Accepted Inputs
- Ticker list — e.g.,
AAPL MSFT GOOGL NVDA META AMZN TSLA - Sector — e.g.,
--sector Technology(screen all major names in that sector) - Index — e.g.,
--index SP500or--index NASDAQ100
Optional Filters (apply before scoring)
| Flag | Description |
--min-score <N> | Only show stocks with TOTAL score ≥ N (e.g., --min-score 6.0) |
--sector <name> | Restrict universe to one GICS sector (e.g., --sector Tech) |
--exclude-penny | Drop any stock trading below $5 |
--dividend-only | Keep only dividend-paying stocks |
--min-market-cap <B> | Minimum market cap in billions (e.g., --min-market-cap 1) |
--depth <level> | quick = top-level ratios only; standard = full 5-dimension scoring (default); comprehensive = standard + narrative write-ups + risk flags |
Scoring Framework
Score every stock on five dimensions, each rated 0–10. Scores are composites — compute sub-scores for each factor listed, then average them into the dimension score (round to one decimal).
1. Valuation Score (0–10)
Higher score = cheaper relative to fundamentals.
| Sub-factor | How to score |
| P/E vs. sector median | Score 10 if P/E < 50 % of sector median, scale linearly to 0 if P/E > 200 % |
| Price-to-Sales (P/S) | Score 10 if P/S < 1, score 0 if P/S > 20, linear in between |
| EV/EBITDA | Score 10 if < 8x, score 0 if > 40x, linear in between |
| PEG Ratio | Score 10 if PEG < 0.75, score 0 if PEG > 3.0, linear in between; use N/A weight if earnings negative |
Average the available sub-scores → Valuation Score.
2. Quality Score (0–10)
Higher score = stronger business fundamentals.
| Sub-factor | How to score |
| Piotroski F-Score | Score = F-Score × (10/9), capped at 10 |
| ROIC vs. WACC spread | Score 10 if spread ≥ +10 pp, score 5 if at parity, score 0 if spread ≤ −10 pp |
| Gross margin trend (3-year) | Score 10 if expanding ≥ +3 pp/yr, score 5 if flat, score 0 if contracting ≥ −3 pp/yr |
| Debt-to-equity | Score 10 if D/E < 0.2, score 0 if D/E > 3.0, linear in between |
Average the available sub-scores → Quality Score.
3. Momentum Score (0–10)
Higher score = stronger price and relative performance momentum.
| Sub-factor | How to score |
| Price vs. MA50 | Score 10 if price ≥ 10 % above MA50, score 5 at MA50, score 0 if ≥ 10 % below |
| Price vs. MA200 | Score 10 if price ≥ 20 % above MA200, score 5 at MA200, score 0 if ≥ 20 % below |
| RSI (14-day) | Score 10 if RSI 55–70 (strong but not overbought), score 5 at RSI 50, score 0 if RSI < 30 or > 80 |
| 3M relative performance vs. SPY | Score 10 if outperforming by ≥ +10 %, score 5 if in-line, score 0 if underperforming by ≥ −10 % |
| 6M relative performance vs. SPY | Same scale as 3M |
| 12M relative performance vs. SPY | Same scale as 12M |
Average the available sub-scores → Momentum Score.
4. Sentiment Score (0–10)
Higher score = more positive smart-money and market positioning signals.
| Sub-factor | How to score |
| Insider net buying (trailing 6M) | Score 10 if net buy value > $5 M, score 5 if neutral/mixed, score 0 if net sell > $5 M |
| Institutional accumulation (QoQ) | Score 10 if institutions net added ≥ +2 % of float, score 5 if flat, score 0 if reduced ≥ −2 % |
| Short interest direction | Score 10 if short interest fell ≥ −20 % MoM (shorts covering), score 5 if flat, score 0 if short interest rose ≥ +20 % |
| Analyst estimate revisions (90d) | Score 10 if ≥ 3 upgrades and no downgrades, score 0 if ≥ 3 downgrades and no upgrades |
Average the available sub-scores → Sentiment Score.
5. Growth Score (0–10)
Higher score = stronger and more reliable growth trajectory.
| Sub-factor | How to score |
| Revenue growth YoY | Score 10 if ≥ 30 %, score 5 if 10 %, score 0 if ≤ 0 % |
| EPS growth YoY | Score 10 if ≥ 40 %, score 5 if 15 %, score 0 if ≤ 0 %; use N/A weight if negative base |
| Forward revenue growth estimate | Same scale as revenue growth YoY |
| Guidance trend (most recent quarter) | Score 10 if raised, score 5 if maintained, score 0 if lowered or withdrawn |
Average the available sub-scores → Growth Score.
TOTAL Score
TOTAL = (Valuation × 0.20) + (Quality × 0.25) + (Momentum × 0.20) + (Sentiment × 0.15) + (Growth × 0.20)Weights reflect: quality as the most durable factor, with equal emphasis on valuation, momentum, and growth, and a slight discount on sentiment which is noisier.
Output Format
Section 1 — Data Sources
State the date and source(s) used for prices and financials.
Section 2 — Screener Leaderboard
Produce a ranked table sorted by TOTAL score descending:
| Rank | Ticker | Val | Quality | Momentum | Sentiment | Growth | TOTAL | Signal |
|------|--------|------|---------|----------|-----------|--------|-------|------------|
| 1 | AAPL | 7.2 | 8.1 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 8.0 | 7.5 | BUY |
| 2 | MSFT | 6.8 | 8.4 | 7.1 | 6.9 | 7.8 | 7.4 | BUY |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |Signal legend:
- TOTAL ≥ 7.5 → 🟢 STRONG BUY
- TOTAL 6.0–7.4 → 🟢 BUY
- TOTAL 4.5–5.9 → 🟡 HOLD
- TOTAL 3.0–4.4 → 🔴 AVOID
- TOTAL < 3.0 → 🔴 STRONG AVOID
Section 3 — Top 3 Deep Dives
For each of the top 3 ranked stocks, provide:
[RANK] [TICKER] — [Company Name]
- Why it scores high: 3–5 bullet points, one per standout dimension
- Key risk: The single most important risk that could invalidate the bull case
- Entry consideration: Suggested price zone or trigger (e.g., pullback to MA50, post-earnings confirmation)
- Investment horizon: Short / Medium / Long-term suitability
Section 4 — Avoid List (Bottom 3)
For each of the bottom 3 ranked stocks, provide:
[RANK] [TICKER] — [Company Name]
- Why it scores low: 2–3 bullet points identifying the weakest dimensions
- Potential catalyst to watch: One event or data point that could change the thesis (don't ignore — flag for reassessment)
Section 5 — Screening Notes
- Any tickers excluded by filters (and which filter triggered)
- Data gaps or caveats (e.g., "ROIC unavailable for XXXX, sub-score excluded")
- Sector / macro context relevant to this batch of stocks
- Correlation warning if top picks are highly correlated (e.g., all mega-cap tech)
Standard Signal Output (Multi-Stock)
End every screening session with this standardized block reflecting the overall health of the screened universe:
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ INVESTMENT SIGNAL — SCREENING SUMMARY ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Top Pick: [TICKER] — Score X.X / 10 ║
║ Avg Score: X.X / 10 (screened universe) ║
║ Tickers Screened: N ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Market Bias: BULLISH / NEUTRAL / BEARISH ║
║ Best Sector: [SECTOR] ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════╝Score Guide: 8.0–10.0 Strongly Bullish | 6.0–7.9 Moderately Bullish | 4.0–5.9 Neutral | 2.0–3.9 Moderately Bearish | 0.0–1.9 Strongly Bearish Market Bias: derived from the average composite score of the screened universe. BULLISH if avg ≥ 6.0, NEUTRAL if 4.0–5.9, BEARISH if < 4.0. Best Sector: the GICS sector with the highest average composite score across all screened tickers in that sector.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.