Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

edge-signal-aggregator

Combine outputs from multiple investment analysis skills into a ranked research shortlist. Apply adjustable weights, merge duplicate findings, and flag conflicting views while retaining source references in JSON and Markdown reports.

OriginalShow the original description

Aggregate and rank signals from multiple edge-finding skills (edge-candidate-agent, theme-detector, sector-analyst, institutional-flow-tracker) into a prioritized conviction dashboard with weighted scoring, deduplication, and contradiction detection.

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Good for

  • Combining results from several investment analysis skills
  • Prioritizing investment ideas for further research
  • Reviewing conflicting sector or trading signals
  • Checking duplicate evidence and score assumptions

Files included (7)

  • SKILL.md11.6 KB
  • assets/default_weights.yaml1.2 KB
  • references/signal-weighting-framework.md7.3 KB
  • requirements.txt123 B
  • scripts/aggregate_signals.py62.7 KB
  • scripts/tests/conftest.py276 B
  • scripts/tests/test_aggregate_signals.py55.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Edge Signal Aggregator

Overview

Combine outputs from multiple upstream edge-finding skills into a single weighted conviction dashboard. This skill applies configurable signal weights, deduplicates overlapping themes, flags contradictions between skills, and ranks composite edge ideas by aggregate confidence score. The result is a prioritized edge shortlist with provenance links to each contributing skill.

When to Use

  • After running multiple edge-finding skills and wanting a unified view
  • When consolidating signals from edge-candidate-agent, theme-detector, sector-analyst, and institutional-flow-tracker
  • Before making portfolio allocation decisions based on multiple signal sources
  • To identify contradictions between different analysis approaches
  • When prioritizing which edge ideas deserve deeper research

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.9+
  • No API keys required (processes local JSON/YAML files from other skills)
  • Dependencies: pyyaml (standard in most environments)

Workflow

Step 1: Gather Upstream Skill Outputs

Collect output files from the upstream skills you want to aggregate:

  • reports/edge_candidate_*.json from edge-candidate-agent
  • reports/edge_concepts_*.yaml from edge-concept-synthesizer
  • reports/theme_detector_*.json from theme-detector
  • reports/sector_analyst_*.json from sector-analyst
  • reports/institutional_flow_*.json from institutional-flow-tracker
  • reports/edge_hints_*.yaml from edge-hint-extractor

Step 2: Run Signal Aggregation

Execute the aggregator script with paths to upstream outputs:

python3 skills/edge-signal-aggregator/scripts/aggregate_signals.py \
  --edge-candidates reports/edge_candidate_agent_*.json \
  --edge-concepts reports/edge_concepts_*.yaml \
  --themes reports/theme_detector_*.json \
  --sectors reports/sector_analyst_*.json \
  --institutional reports/institutional_flow_*.json \
  --hints reports/edge_hints_*.yaml \
  --output-dir reports/

Optional: Use a custom weights configuration:

python3 skills/edge-signal-aggregator/scripts/aggregate_signals.py \
  --edge-candidates reports/edge_candidate_agent_*.json \
  --weights-config skills/edge-signal-aggregator/assets/custom_weights.yaml \
  --output-dir reports/

Step 3: Review Aggregated Dashboard

Open the generated report to review:

  1. Ranked Edge Ideas - Sorted by composite conviction score
  2. Signal Provenance - Which skills contributed to each idea
  3. Contradictions - Conflicting signals flagged for manual review
  4. Deduplication Log - Merged overlapping themes

Step 4: Act on High-Conviction Signals

Filter the shortlist by minimum conviction threshold:

python3 skills/edge-signal-aggregator/scripts/aggregate_signals.py \
  --edge-candidates reports/edge_candidate_agent_*.json \
  --min-conviction 0.7 \
  --output-dir reports/

Output Format

JSON Report

{
  "schema_version": "1.1",
  "generated_at": "2026-03-02T07:00:00Z",
  "config": {
    "weights": {
      "edge_candidate_agent": 0.25,
      "edge_concept_synthesizer": 0.20,
      "theme_detector": 0.15,
      "sector_analyst": 0.15,
      "institutional_flow_tracker": 0.15,
      "edge_hint_extractor": 0.10
    },
    "min_conviction": 0.5,
    "dedup_similarity_threshold": 0.8
  },
  "summary": {
    "total_input_signals": 42,
    "unique_signals_after_dedup": 28,
    "contradictions_found": 3,
    "signals_above_threshold": 12,
    "invalid_signals_dropped": 2,
    "idempotency_check": {
      "total_input_signals": 42,
      "unique_evidence_ids": 28,
      "duplicate_copies_merged": 14,
      "independent_units_total": 30
    }
  },
  "ranked_signals": [
    {
      "rank": 1,
      "signal_id": "sig_001",
      "title": "AI Infrastructure Capex Acceleration",
      "composite_score": 0.87,
      "evidence_id": "ticket_2026-03-01_001",
      "score_scale_assumed": false,
      "contributing_skills": [
        {
          "skill": "edge_candidate_agent",
          "signal_ref": "ticket_2026-03-01_001",
          "raw_score": 0.92,
          "weighted_contribution": 0.23,
          "evidence_id": "ticket_2026-03-01_001",
          "event_fingerprint": "sha1-of-title-and-tickers"
        },
        {
          "skill": "theme_detector",
          "signal_ref": "theme_ai_infra",
          "raw_score": 0.85,
          "weighted_contribution": 0.13
        }
      ],
      "tickers": ["NVDA", "AMD", "AVGO"],
      "direction": "LONG",
      "time_horizon": "3-6 months",
      "confidence_breakdown": {
        "multi_skill_agreement": 0.30,
        "signal_strength": 0.35,
        "recency": 0.22
      }
    }
  ],
  "contradictions": [
    {
      "contradiction_id": "contra_001",
      "description": "Conflicting sector view on Energy",
      "skill_a": {
        "skill": "sector_analyst",
        "signal": "Energy sector bearish rotation",
        "direction": "SHORT"
      },
      "skill_b": {
        "skill": "institutional_flow_tracker",
        "signal": "Heavy institutional buying in XLE",
        "direction": "LONG"
      },
      "resolution_hint": "Check timeframe mismatch (short-term vs long-term)"
    }
  ],
  "deduplication_log": [
    {
      "merged_into": "edge_candidate_agent:ticket_001",
      "duplicates_removed": ["edge_candidate_agent:ticket_001@reports/ticket_001.json"],
      "similarity_score": 1.0,
      "reason": "same evidence re-ingested",
      "selection_rule": "newest timestamp wins; ties, missing, or unparsable timestamps keep the highest raw_score, then a stable key",
      "retained_copy": {
        "signal_ref": "ticket_001",
        "source_file": "reports/rerun.json",
        "raw_score": 0.5,
        "timestamp": "2026-10-10T00:00:00Z"
      },
      "discarded_copies": [
        {
          "signal_ref": "ticket_001",
          "source_file": "reports/ticket_001.json",
          "raw_score": 0.9,
          "timestamp": "2026-10-09T00:00:00Z"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "merged_into": "edge_candidate_agent:ticket_001",
      "duplicates_removed": ["theme_detector:ai_compute"],
      "similarity_score": 0.9
    }
  ],
  "invalid_signals": [
    {
      "skill": "theme_detector",
      "signal_ref": "broken_theme",
      "title": "Theme with a corrupted score",
      "reason": "non_finite",
      "declared_scale": null,
      "raw_value_repr": "nan",
      "source_file": "reports/theme_detector_2026-03-01.json"
    }
  ],
  "scale_assumptions_report": [
    {
      "skill": "theme_detector",
      "signal_ref": "ai_compute",
      "value": 7.2,
      "normalized_value": 0.072,
      "assumed_scale": "0-100",
      "source_file": "reports/theme_detector.json"
    }
  ]
}

Producer contract (optional keys, schema 1.1)

Each producer item (ticket, concept, theme, sector row, flow, hint) MAY carry:

  • evidence_id — a stable identifier for the underlying evidence. Without this key a deterministic fallback is derived from skill, signal reference, title, tickers, and direction (timestamps are excluded so refreshed timestamps cannot forge a new identity). Re-ingesting the same evidence (same skill + evidence_id) never adds a bonus: all copies collapse into one. When the copies differ, the newest observation wins: the copy with the latest timestamp, compared as parsed timezone-aware datetimes (date-only and naive values are read as UTC), becomes the retained score. Equal, missing, or unparsable timestamps fall back to the highest raw_score, then a stable key (signal_ref, source_file), so ingestion order never changes the result. Only ISO-8601 strings (or YYYY-MM-DD) are ordered; epoch numbers and compact forms such as 20261010 count as missing timestamps. Remaining full ties are broken by title, direction, tickers, and a canonical dump of the signal. A copy that carries a score older than the retained one is discarded, so a newer, lower score replaces an older, higher one. The discarded copies' scores and timestamps are listed in deduplication_log[].discarded_copies. Identical copies leave the score unchanged.
  • score_scale — "0-1" or "0-100", declaring the raw score's scale. Declared scales are enforced strictly: NaN/infinity/negative/out-of-range values are rejected into invalid_signals, never converted into maximum confidence. A present-but-unparsable declaration ("", "foo") is also rejected (missing_scale). If the key is absent, values in (1, 100] are divided by 100 and flagged score_scale_assumed: true plus a scale_assumptions_report entry (value is the original input, normalized_value the 0-1 score used); values > 100 are rejected.

Agreement rule (Issue #510)

Agreement bonuses fire on agreement_tier = min(distinct evidence_ids, distinct event_fingerprints, distinct skills) among a merged signal's contributors: tier 2 earns the two-skills bonus, tier 3+ the three-plus bonus. Re-ingested duplicates earn nothing; the same event restated by another skill (identical normalized title + tickers) counts once. Known limitation: the event fingerprint is vocabulary-based, so paraphrased restatements with disjoint word sets still earn the agreement bonus — treat cross-skill paraphrases with independent verification. Merged duplicates no longer earn a per-copy bonus (merge_bonus_per_duplicate is deprecated and ignored).

Markdown Report

The markdown report provides a human-readable dashboard:

# Edge Signal Aggregator Dashboard
**Generated:** 2026-03-02 07:00 UTC

## Summary
- Total Input Signals: 42
- Unique After Dedup: 28
- Contradictions: 3
- High Conviction (>=0.5): 12

## Top 10 Edge Ideas by Conviction

### 1. AI Infrastructure Capex Acceleration (Score: 0.87)
- **Tickers:** NVDA, AMD, AVGO
- **Direction:** LONG | **Horizon:** 3-6 months
- **Contributing Skills:**
  - edge-candidate-agent: 0.92 (ticket_2026-03-01_001)
  - theme-detector: 0.85 (theme_ai_infra)
- **Confidence Breakdown:** Agreement 0.30 | Strength 0.35 | Recency 0.22

...

## Contradictions Requiring Review

### Energy Sector Conflict
- **sector-analyst:** Bearish rotation (SHORT)
- **institutional-flow-tracker:** Heavy buying XLE (LONG)
- **Hint:** Check timeframe mismatch

## Deduplication Summary
- 14 signals merged into 8 unique themes
- Average similarity of merged signals: 0.89

Reports are saved to reports/ with filenames:

  • edge_signal_aggregator_YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS.json
  • edge_signal_aggregator_YYYY-MM-DD_HHMMSS.md

Resources

  • scripts/aggregate_signals.py -- Main aggregation script with CLI interface
  • references/signal-weighting-framework.md -- Rationale for default weights and scoring methodology
  • assets/default_weights.yaml -- Default skill weights configuration

Key Principles

  1. Provenance Tracking -- Every aggregated signal links back to its source skill and original reference
  2. Contradiction Transparency -- Conflicting signals are flagged, not hidden, to enable informed decisions
  3. Configurable Weights -- Default weights reflect typical reliability but can be customized per user
  4. Deduplication Without Loss -- Merged signals retain references to all original sources
  5. Actionable Output -- Ranked list with clear tickers, direction, and time horizon for each idea
  6. Idempotent Aggregation -- Re-ingesting the same evidence never inflates scores; agreement credit requires distinct skills AND distinct events
  7. Strict Score Validation -- NaN/infinity, negative, and out-of-range scores are rejected and reported, never converted into maximum confidence

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

backtest-expert

FreeSummary

Plan and assess backtests, which test trading rules against historical data. Examine sensitivity to rule changes, trading costs, and data bias, then use supplied performance metrics to generate a structured evaluation with reasons that block adoption.

  • Define a backtesting plan for rule-based trading
  • Test sensitivity to parameters and trading costs
  • Investigate suspiciously strong backtest results
tradermonty/claude-trading-skills3.3KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

Analyze chart images showing how broadly US stocks are participating in market trends. Assess medium-term conditions and short-term signals, then produce an English report with positioning guidance, alternative scenarios, and risks based on the visible data.

  • Assessing the market cycle from an S&P 500 breadth chart
  • Checking short-term signals in an uptrend stock ratio chart
  • Comparing medium-term and short-term market signals
tradermonty/claude-trading-skills3.3KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

Assess how broadly US stock market gains are shared across stocks using public CSV data and optional charts. Produce English reports covering market conditions, trading signals, scenarios, and positioning for different investment timeframes.

  • Checking how broadly US stocks are participating in a market rise
  • Reviewing medium- to long-term market positioning
  • Assessing short-term swing trading signals
tradermonty/claude-trading-skills3.3KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

Turn VCP screening results, which identify narrowing price swings, into breakout trade plans. Calculate entry, stop-loss, target prices, and position sizes using worst-case entries, while applying portfolio risk limits and producing Alpaca-compatible order templates.

  • Planning entries, stop-losses, and profit targets for VCP candidates
  • Calculating position sizes from account size and risk limits
  • Checking total portfolio risk and sector exposure
tradermonty/claude-trading-skills3.3KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

canslim-screener

FreeSummary

Screen US growth stocks with William O'Neil's CANSLIM method, which evaluates seven factors including earnings, price strength, trading volume, and market direction. Receive ranked candidates with composite scores, factor breakdowns, market warnings, and data quality notes.

  • Find US stocks with earnings growth and price momentum
  • Compare a chosen list of stocks using CANSLIM scores
  • Screen a sector-focused stock list
tradermonty/claude-trading-skills3.3KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

Combine three reports on crowded positions, failed reactions to news, and weekly price reversals into one trading setup status. Identify missing or invalid evidence and determine whether the setup is ready for planning.

  • Combine three contrarian strategy reports
  • Check which confirmations are still missing
  • Find stale or inconsistent input reports
tradermonty/claude-trading-skills3.3KUpdated Oct 24, 2026

See all skills by tradermonty

Report a problem with this skill