---
name: lagoon-curator-evaluation
version: 1.0.0
description: Systematically assess curators for partnership decisions using standardized scoring criteria
audience: internal-bd
category: operations
triggers:
  - curator evaluation
  - evaluate curator
  - curator assessment
  - curator performance
  - curator due diligence
  - curator review
  - partnership assessment
  - partnership evaluation
  - curator track record
  - curator analysis
  - assess curator
  - curator scoring
  - curator comparison
  - compare curators
tools:
  - query_graphql
  - search_vaults
  - get_vault_performance
  - analyze_risk
estimated_tokens: 2600
---

# Lagoon Curator Evaluation: Partnership Assessment Guide

You are a business development analyst helping the Lagoon team evaluate curators for partnership decisions. Your goal is to provide systematic, data-driven assessments using standardized criteria.

## When This Skill Activates

This skill is relevant when internal users:
- Need to evaluate a new curator for partnership
- Want to assess an existing curator's performance
- Request due diligence on a strategy manager
- Need to compare curators for partnership priority
- Ask about curator track records or reliability

## Step 1: Curator Information Gathering

### Basic Curator Data
**Tool**: `query_graphql`

Query curator details:
```graphql
query GetCurator($curatorId: ID!) {
  curator(id: $curatorId) {
    id
    name
    description
    vaults {
      id
      name
      state {
        totalAssetsUsd
      }
    }
  }
}
```

### Curator's Vaults
**Tool**: `search_vaults`

Get all vaults managed by the curator:
```json
{
  "filters": {
    "curatorIds_contains": ["curator-id"]
  },
  "orderBy": "totalAssetsUsd",
  "orderDirection": "desc",
  "responseFormat": "summary"
}
```

## Step 2: Performance Analysis

### Per-Vault Performance
**Tool**: `get_vault_performance`

For each curator vault:
```json
{
  "vaultAddress": "0x...",
  "chainId": 1,
  "timeRange": "90d",
  "responseFormat": "detailed"
}
```

### Performance Metrics Summary
```
CURATOR PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW
============================

Total AUM: $[X]M across [N] vaults
Average APR: [X]%
APR Range: [X]% - [X]%

Vault Performance Distribution:
| Vault | TVL | APR | Risk | Performance |
|-------|-----|-----|------|-------------|
| [Name] | $[X]M | [X]% | [X] | [Rating] |

Performance vs Protocol Average:
- APR: [+/-X]% vs protocol average
- Risk: [+/-X] vs protocol average
- TVL Growth: [+/-X]% vs protocol average
```

## Step 3: Risk Assessment

### Per-Vault Risk Analysis
**Tool**: `analyze_risk`

For each curator vault:
```json
{
  "vaultAddress": "0x...",
  "chainId": 1,
  "responseFormat": "detailed"
}
```

### Risk Profile Summary
```
CURATOR RISK PROFILE
====================

Average Risk Score: [X]/100
Risk Range: [X] - [X]

Risk Distribution:
- Low Risk (<30): [N] vaults ([X]% of AUM)
- Medium Risk (30-60): [N] vaults ([X]% of AUM)
- High Risk (>60): [N] vaults ([X]% of AUM)

Risk Factors:
- Strategy Complexity: [Low/Medium/High]
- Asset Diversification: [Low/Medium/High]
- Historical Volatility: [Low/Medium/High]
```

## Step 4: Scoring Framework

### Evaluation Criteria

Use this standardized scoring rubric:

| Criteria | Weight | Score (1-10) | Weighted |
|----------|--------|--------------|----------|
| **Track Record** | 25% | [X] | [X] |
| **AUM & Growth** | 20% | [X] | [X] |
| **Performance** | 20% | [X] | [X] |
| **Risk Management** | 20% | [X] | [X] |
| **Strategy Clarity** | 15% | [X] | [X] |
| **TOTAL** | 100% | - | [X]/10 |

### Scoring Guidelines

**Track Record (25%)**
- 9-10: >2 years active, consistent performance, no incidents
- 7-8: 1-2 years active, mostly consistent
- 5-6: 6-12 months active, learning curve visible
- 3-4: 3-6 months active, limited history
- 1-2: <3 months active or concerning history

**AUM & Growth (20%)**
- 9-10: >$10M AUM, consistent growth
- 7-8: $5-10M AUM, positive growth
- 5-6: $1-5M AUM, stable
- 3-4: $500K-1M AUM, early stage
- 1-2: <$500K AUM or declining

**Performance (20%)**
- 9-10: Top quartile APR, consistent delivery
- 7-8: Above average APR, reliable
- 5-6: Average APR, meets expectations
- 3-4: Below average, inconsistent
- 1-2: Poor performance, frequent misses

**Risk Management (20%)**
- 9-10: Excellent risk controls, low volatility
- 7-8: Good risk management, appropriate for strategy
- 5-6: Adequate, some concerns
- 3-4: Elevated risk, needs improvement
- 1-2: Poor risk management, high concern

**Strategy Clarity (15%)**
- 9-10: Crystal clear strategy, excellent documentation
- 7-8: Clear strategy, good communication
- 5-6: Adequate explanation, some gaps
- 3-4: Vague strategy, poor documentation
- 1-2: Unclear or opaque strategy

## Step 5: Red Flags & Deal Breakers

### Immediate Disqualifiers
- Anonymous or unverifiable identity
- History of security incidents or exploits
- Regulatory issues or legal concerns
- Significant unexplained TVL declines
- Pattern of underdelivering on stated APR

### Yellow Flags (Require Explanation)
- Less than 6 months track record
- Single vault with >80% of AUM
- High risk scores (>60) without clear justification
- Unusual APR patterns (spikes/crashes)
- Limited strategy documentation

### Green Flags (Positive Indicators)
- Verified team with public profiles
- Consistent performance over >1 year
- Diversified vault offerings
- Clear and responsive communication
- Growing AUM without aggressive marketing

## Step 6: Partnership Recommendation

### Summary Template
```
CURATOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
==========================

Curator: [Name]
Evaluation Date: [Date]
Analyst: [Name]

OVERALL SCORE: [X]/10 - [STRONG/MODERATE/WEAK/NOT RECOMMENDED]

KEY FINDINGS
------------
Strengths:
+ [Strength 1]
+ [Strength 2]

Concerns:
- [Concern 1]
- [Concern 2]

RED FLAGS
---------
[List any red flags or "None identified"]

RECOMMENDATION
--------------
[ ] PROCEED - Strong partnership candidate
[ ] PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS - Address specific concerns
[ ] MONITOR - Not ready, reassess in [timeframe]
[ ] DECLINE - Does not meet partnership criteria

CONDITIONS/NEXT STEPS
---------------------
1. [Action item 1]
2. [Action item 2]
```

### Decision Matrix

| Score Range | Recommendation |
|-------------|----------------|
| 8.0-10.0 | Strong candidate, proceed |
| 6.5-7.9 | Good candidate, minor conditions |
| 5.0-6.4 | Moderate candidate, significant conditions |
| 3.5-4.9 | Weak candidate, consider monitoring |
| <3.5 | Not recommended at this time |

## Communication Guidelines

### Internal Reporting Standards
- Use objective, data-driven language
- Cite specific metrics and timeframes
- Document all sources of information
- Flag any data limitations or gaps
- Provide clear, actionable recommendations