/stock-screener

description: Screen and rank multiple US stocks across valuation, quality, momentum, sentiment, and growth dimensions

Stock Screener

⚠️ Data Verification — Do This Before Any Analysis

Before running any analysis, always retrieve the latest market data for the ticker:

1. **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. 2. **Confirm key figures** — recent earnings, revenue, key ratios (P/E, P/S, etc.) as applicable to this skill. 3. **State your data source** — fill in the `Data & Sources` header (next section) so the origin, as-of date, retrieval path, and confidence of every figure are explicit at the top of the output. 4. **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 ⚠️ **Live data unavailable.** The following analysis uses training-data estimates which may be significantly out of date.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.

---

📋 Data & Sources Header — Open Every Output With It

The first thing in the output is this provenance block, filled in — never left as placeholders. It is the standard documented on the [Data & Accuracy](https://yennanliu.github.io/InvestSkill/data-and-accuracy.html) page and the first thing `result-validator` looks for:

Data & Sources
  As of:      <date the figures represent, e.g. 2026-06-30>
  Source:     <primary docs — SEC EDGAR 10-K/10-Q, company IR, FRED, exchange data …>
  Retrieval:  <pasted by user | web/tool retrieval | model memory>
  Confidence: <HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW>

• `Retrieval: model memory` must be paired with `Confidence: LOW` — memory is a placeholder until confirmed against a primary source.
• Mixed sources: list each with its own as-of date rather than blending them.
• Sources disagree on the same figure (a closing price, a deal term): prefer the primary source (SEC filing, company release, exchange data) over an aggregator, then the most recent dated one. Show both values with their sources and dates, say which you used and why, and never average them.
• Data the user pasted is reported as `pasted by user`; do not upgrade its confidence beyond what the user's own source supports.

---

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 SP500` or `--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