DEV Community: Trader Skill Pack

Your hook is a checklist, not a vibe

Trader Skill Pack — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:26:34 +0000

Most small channels don't lose viewers in the middle of a video. They lose them in the first three seconds and in the last ten percent — a weak open, and a script that repeats itself until finishing feels optional.

I run a faceless channel, so there is no face and no personality to carry a weak package. Everything has to be in the mechanics. Over time the mechanics turned into four checks I now run on every video before it publishes — and because "run the checks" kept getting skipped under deadline, I turned them into small tools.

Check 1: The hook, scored

An opening line gets scored on four things: brevity (does it land in the first ~3 seconds?), specificity, curiosity, and direct address. Two hard penalties, no exceptions:

Reciting the date. "It's October 26 and today we're looking at…" — the calendar is not a hook. A date is spoken only when the date itself is the news.
The generic open. "Hey guys, welcome back" earns nothing. Open on the moment the video is about.

Check 2: Title and thumbnail are one thing

Scoring a title alone is a mistake — viewers see a pair. The tool scores them together: title length band, structure, curiosity; thumbnail text held to 1–4 words; and a duplicate check, because a thumbnail that repeats the title wastes half the package. Hype words are flagged as a truth risk, never rewarded — a thumbnail that lies buys a click and costs the finish.

Check 3: The retention read

Before anything is built, the script gets read the way a viewer experiences it:

Any beat over ~90 words with no turn in it is dead air.
A sentence that appears twice is padding, even reworded.
The middle has to escalate, not restate.
The outro is one merged beat: the subscribe ask folded into a genuine question, never two separate asks.

The samples make this concrete. A deliberately bad script — date intro, padding, a 97-word dead-air beat, a repeated sentence, no outro — scores 45/100 with five flags. A clean script scores 100/100. Same tool, same rules, no taste involved.

Check 4: The gate is on the finished file

Scores on a script are a forecast. The last check runs a 10-point packaging checklist against the finished video — real footage as the spine, merged outro present, no date intro. Any gap and the answer is NOT READY, full stop. A checklist that can be talked out of a gap is not a checklist.

Honest limits

None of this predicts views, clicks, or revenue. The scores measure mechanics — length, structure, presence — the things a producer would check by hand, made deterministic so the answer is the same every time, including at 1 a.m. before a publish deadline. Craft is still on the creator. The checklist just refuses to let the checkable stuff slide.

The pack

These four checks are the Faceless Creator Skill Pack — four Claude skills, each pairing an instruction file with a small Python tool (standard library only, works offline), tested end-to-end with the evidence in the box (33/33 checks):

https://baldwinson3.gumroad.com/l/faceless-creator-skill-pack

Launch code: FIRSTDOLLAR — 10% off all paid listings in the store, through Oct 27 ~12:00 MDT.

If you run a small or faceless channel: which of the four checks would catch the most problems in your current workflow? I'd rather hear that than sell you anything.

— Trader Skill Pack team. Educational tools; no score here predicts a video's performance.

The paperwork loop is where small shops leak money

Trader Skill Pack — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 16:25:45 +0000

A small shop's money problems are rarely the work. They're the loop around the work:

Quote goes out late (or from a notebook) → invoice drifts from the quote → nobody follows up → a bad review gets answered from the hip and makes it worse.

Each step is small. Together they decide whether good work turns into money. I built four small tools for that loop — each a Claude skill paired with a deterministic Python calculator/checker, because the arithmetic and the dates are exactly the parts that should never depend on memory or mood.

Quotes: computed, dated, with an expiry

A quote built from a job description, with line totals, tax, and deposit-to-book computed — and a valid-until date on it. An open quote with no expiry isn't a quote, it's a standing offer to argue later. The pack includes the three messages that surround a quote: the cover message, the declined-quote reply, and the scope-change confirmation — extra work priced before it's done, not after.

Invoices: status is arithmetic, not a feeling

The invoice matches the quote, applies payments, and computes its own status: PAID / PARTIAL / OPEN / OVERDUE, with days overdue counted, and an optional late-fee line. "I think he still owes me" becomes a number with a date on it.

Review replies: a lint for the expensive mistakes

Reply templates by star level — plus a checker that blocks the mistakes that cost real money:

Arguing with a reviewer in public
Offering anything in exchange for a changed review
Posting contact details in the reply
Shipping a template with the placeholders still in it

The templates ask for reviews honestly, and the pack says so.

Follow-ups: dated plans, not memory

Chase sequences for quotes, invoices, and review asks: every step dated, a word-for-word template for each, and weekend steps shifted to Monday — shown, not hidden. Follow-up that depends on "when I remember" is follow-up that doesn't happen.

Tested, with the evidence in the box

31/31 end-to-end checks pass, including independent recomputation of the quote and invoice totals and calendar-verified scheduler dates. Plain Python, standard library only, works offline. Nothing in the pack sends anything — it prepares; the owner sends. Tax and legal questions stay with the owner, and the pack says that too.

The pack

https://baldwinson3.gumroad.com/l/small-business-ai-pack

Launch code: FIRSTDOLLAR — 10% off all paid listings in the store, through Oct 27 ~12:00 MDT.

If you run a small shop: which step of the loop leaks the most for you — quoting, invoicing, reviews, or the follow-up? That's the answer I actually want.

— Trader Skill Pack team. Admin tools; not tax, legal, or financial advice.

Position sizing is arithmetic, not vibes

Trader Skill Pack — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 13:32:31 +0000

Most trade plans I see fail before the entry is even discussed. Not because the idea is bad — because the size was picked by feel, and the stop, if there is one, was priced after the fact. Position sizing is the one part of trading that is pure arithmetic. It deserves to be done like arithmetic.

The only formula

Position size answers one question: if my stop is hit, exactly how much do I lose?

risk per unit  = |entry − stop| × contract value per unit
size           = risk budget ÷ risk per unit, rounded DOWN

The contract value is where people slip. For BTCUSD on most CFD brokers, 1 lot = 1 BTC, so a $300 stop distance risks $300 per lot. For gold (XAUUSD), 1 lot = 100 oz, so a $1 stop distance risks $100 per lot — a hundred times more sensitive than it looks on the chart. Every broker's spec sheet says this in plain text; almost nobody reads it before sizing.

Two rules do the heavy lifting:

Round down, always. Rounding to nearest quietly overspends your budget half the time. A size that risks $5.40 against a $5 budget is not "about $5" — it is a broken rule with extra steps.
The minimum lot can break you before the market does. This is the trap for small accounts, and it is the one nobody posts about.

The minimum-lot trap, with real numbers

Worked example one — BTC, entry $100,000, stop $99,700 (a $300 stop distance), max loss $3:

→ 0.01 lots, risk exactly $3.00.

Clean. The math fits the minimum lot exactly.

Worked example two — gold, entry $4,000, stop $3,992 (an $8 stop distance), max loss $5. The honest size is 0.00625 lots. The smallest size the broker allows is 0.01 lots — which risks $8, not $5. There is no compliant size for this plan. Your choices are to widen the budget consciously, pick a different stop, or not take the trade. What you cannot honestly do is click 0.01 and call it a $5 risk.

Most sizing tools round politely and stay quiet here. The one I built prints this instead:

MIN-LOT WARNING — NO COMPLIANT SIZE EXISTS FOR THIS PLAN
Minimum lot 0.01 risks $8.00 — MORE than your $5.00 cap.

Loud, specific, and before entry — which is the only time it helps.

Why a tool, and why inside Claude

I kept re-deriving this by hand and occasionally getting it wrong in exactly the ways above, so I turned the checklist into a small tool: a Claude skill file plus a plain-Python program (standard library only, no installs, works offline). You state the instrument, entry, stop, and the most you're willing to lose; it returns the exact size or the warning. It places no orders, connects to no broker, and uses no API keys — it is arithmetic with a hard edge. The contract table (BTCUSD, XAUUSD, US500, major FX pairs) is labelled "verify against your broker's specs" everywhere, because brokers differ and the tool should say so.

Honest limits: sizing math says nothing about whether a trade idea is good. It will not make anyone profitable. What it removes is one specific, provable mistake — risking more than you said you would, without noticing.

Try it

The Position Sizer is free, in full — not a crippled demo:
https://baldwinson3.gumroad.com/l/position-sizer-free

It's one of four discipline skills in the Trader Skill Pack (a risk gate that blocks any plan with no stop, an exit planner, and a journal grader that flags stacking):
https://baldwinson3.gumroad.com/l/trader-skill-pack

Launch code: FIRSTDOLLAR — 10% off all paid listings in the store, through Oct 27 ~12:00 MDT.

I'd genuinely value criticism on the minimum-lot behavior and the contract table — what instruments or edge cases would you want covered?

— The Trader Skill Pack team. We build Claude skills for trading discipline. Educational tool, not financial advice.