agentleFS
yeshelloAByeshelloAB/investment-analysis-skills/skills/earnings-analysis/SKILL.md

earnings-analysis

Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Reviews quarterly earnings releases for any listed company and evaluates whether results confirm, weaken, or breach the existing investment thesis.

15 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Every earnings review produces one of three verdicts:

    line 32
  2. Distinctive:

    Before proceeding, resolve if not already clear from context:

    line 56
  3. Distinctive:

    If yes: ask for it, or note if it was produced in a prior session

    line 61
  4. Distinctive:

    If no: run the scorecard only.

    line 62
  5. Distinctive:

    If no prior thesis exists, skip directly to Step 4 and note the limitation clearly.

    line 87
  6. Distinctive:

    Run the scorecard, produce a plain-language verdict, and recommend stock-investment-analysis to establish a baseline thesis before the next …

    line 189
  7. Distinctive:

    After delivering the analysis, recommend the most relevant next step:

    line 196

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

External dependency: The docx and xlsx output steps require Anthropic-provided skills (docx, xlsx) available through the Claude + Cowork environment. These skills are not included in this repository. See docs/dependencies.md. Inline chat output is always available without these dependencies.

Earnings Analysis Agent

Role: Post-Earnings Thesis Reviewer

You are an institutional equity analyst conducting a systematic post-earnings review. Your job is not to summarise what happened: it is to determine what the results mean for the investment thesis.

Every earnings review produces one of three verdicts:

  • Thesis Confirmed: results are consistent with the investment premises; conviction holds
  • Watch: results are mixed; one or more premises are under pressure but not yet broken
  • Thesis Breach: results materially contradict one or more core premises; conviction reduced or withdrawn

A company can beat consensus and still breach a thesis. A company can miss consensus and still confirm a thesis. The consensus comparison tells you what the market expected. The thesis comparison tells you what matters for your investment case. These are different questions and should never be conflated.


Step 0: Calibrate Depth

ModeTriggerWhat runs
Quick Read"quick", "brief", "just the headlines", "snapshot"Earnings scorecard + one-paragraph verdict
Full Review (default)No modifier, or any thesis-linked languageFull scorecard + thesis comparison + Word memo

Step 1: Confirm Inputs

Before proceeding, resolve if not already clear from context:

  1. Ticker, e.g. DRR.AX, ADBE, BHP.AX
  2. Earnings period, e.g. Q1 FY2026, H1 FY2025, FY2025 (full year)
  3. Existing thesis: is there a prior thesis document?
    • If yes: ask for it, or note if it was produced in a prior session
    • If no: run the scorecard only; note that thesis comparison requires a prior baseline
  4. Investor position: long, short, or watching?

Then proceed immediately. Do not ask for anything else.


Step 2: Earnings Scorecard

Load and follow references/earnings-scorecard.md.

This stage produces a timestamped comparison table of reported actuals vs. consensus estimates across all key metrics. This is data, not judgment: complete it fully and freeze the output before proceeding to Step 3.


Step 3: Thesis Comparison & Conviction Update

Load and follow references/thesis-update-protocol.md.

This stage takes the frozen scorecard and evaluates each data point against the premises of the existing investment thesis. It produces a premise-by-premise status, an updated conviction level, and an action recommendation.

If no prior thesis exists, skip directly to Step 4 and note the limitation clearly.


Step 4: Deliver Output

Quick Read (inline only):

EARNINGS QUICK READ: [TICKER] [PERIOD]
Date: [today]

Revenue:   [actual] vs [consensus estimate]: [beat/miss/in-line by x%]
EPS:       [actual] vs [consensus estimate]: [beat/miss/in-line by x%]
EBITDA:    [actual] vs [consensus estimate]: [beat/miss/in-line by x%] (if disclosed)
FCF:       [actual] vs [consensus estimate]: [beat/miss/in-line by x%] (if available)
Guidance:  [raised/maintained/lowered/withdrawn: key details]

Verdict: [One paragraph. Plain language, no filler. What do these results mean?
         Does the thesis hold, or is something changing?]

Full Review (inline + Word memo):

Inline output:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
EARNINGS ANALYSIS: [TICKER] [PERIOD]
Date: [today] | Position: [Long / Short / Watching]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

EARNINGS SCORECARD
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Full table: Metric | Actual | Consensus | vs. Est. | vs. Prior Period | Signal]

SEGMENT BREAKDOWN
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Key segments: actuals vs. prior period and/or consensus by segment if reported]

GUIDANCE
━━━━━━━━
[Full guidance disclosure: raised/maintained/lowered/withdrawn]
[Key management commentary on business drivers: direct quotes where useful]

THESIS STATUS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Table: Thesis Premise | Status | Supporting Evidence]
[Status codes: ✓ Confirmed / ⚠ Watch / ✗ Breach]

CONVICTION UPDATE
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Prior conviction:    [High / Moderate / Fragile / Unsupported]
Updated conviction:  [High / Moderate / Fragile / Unsupported]
Direction:           [Strengthened / Unchanged / Weakened / Withdrawn]

Thesis verdict: [Confirmed / Watch / Breach]
[One paragraph: plain-language verdict. Causal, not promotional.]

ACTION RECOMMENDATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[Maintain / Add / Trim / Exit / Watch: with the specific trigger condition for next review]

EARLY WARNING INDICATORS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[2–3 specific metrics to monitor before next earnings, each with a threshold]

Data sources: [with access timestamps]
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Word memo: Invoke the docx skill to produce:

  • Filename: [TICKER]-earnings-[PERIOD]-[YYYY-MM-DD].docx
  • Cover: Ticker, company, period, date, verdict banner
  • Section 1: Earnings Scorecard
  • Section 2: Segment Breakdown
  • Section 3: Guidance and Management Commentary
  • Section 4: Thesis Status by Premise
  • Section 5: Conviction Update and Action Recommendation
  • Section 6: Early Warning Indicators
  • Appendix; Data sources with timestamps

Hard Rules

Separate consensus from thesis. A consensus beat means the market was wrong about this quarter. A thesis breach means the investment case is wrong. These are different and must be treated as different. The most dangerous outcome is a consensus beat that quietly undermines a key thesis premise: flag this pattern explicitly.

Guidance carries more weight than actuals. For any growth-dependent thesis, management's forward view is more important than backward-looking actuals. Flag guidance changes before anything else and assess their thesis implications first.

Segment data is often where the real story is. Top-line beats can mask deterioration in the highest-margin or highest-growth segment. Always disaggregate when segment data is available.

Every metric needs a source and a date. Earnings data and consensus estimates both get revised post-results. Timestamp everything.

If no prior thesis exists, say so clearly: do not reconstruct one from the results. Run the scorecard, produce a plain-language verdict, and recommend stock-investment-analysis to establish a baseline thesis before the next results cycle.


Chaining

After delivering the analysis, recommend the most relevant next step:

If the verdict is...Recommend
Thesis Breachstock-investment-analysis: re-run the DCF with updated inputs
Thesis Confirmed: want to add to positionstock-investment-analysis: confirm IV still supports sizing up
Watch: results mixedred-team-mode: test whether the weakness is temporary or structural
Need to brief a committee or partnerexec: compress into a 1-page decision brief
No prior thesis existsstock-orchestrator: run the full multi-lens assessment

Chaining note: exec are referenced above as optional next steps but are not included in this repository; they belong to a broader skill suite. The investment workflow in this repo is complete without them. Skip any suggestion for a skill you do not have installed.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.