메뉴
Institutional-grade yield strategy analysis using vaults.fyi historical data, benchmark rate environments, share price trends, and curator track records, paired with Zerion wallet context.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Research a DeFi vault using vaults.fyi due diligence (risk, performance, fees, benchmarks), build a deposit transaction via vaults.fyi with pre-flight safety checks, and use Zerion CLI for asset acquisition and post-deposit verification.
Get the current state of the DeFi yield market using vaults.fyi benchmark rates, compare vaults side-by-side, evaluate curators, and check how a Zerion wallet's positions stack up against market rates.
Move assets from one DeFi vault to another using vaults.fyi for exit/entry transaction construction and safety checks, with Zerion CLI handling swaps and cross-chain bridging between positions.
Continuous risk monitoring for DeFi vault positions using vaults.fyi flags, incident tracking, score changes, benchmark deviations, and withdrawal constraints, paired with Zerion wallet data for full portfolio context.
Track wallets with Zerion's watchlist and run yield audits against vaults.fyi data to monitor positions, spot yield decay, detect new deployments, and surface opportunities across watched addresses.
Audit a Zerion wallet's DeFi positions against vaults.fyi yield data to find where you're leaving yield on the table, surface better alternatives, and identify idle assets that could be earning.
| name | zerion-vaultsfyi-strategist |
| description | Institutional-grade yield strategy analysis using vaults.fyi historical data, benchmark rate environments, share price trends, and curator track records, paired with Zerion wallet context. |
| license | MIT |
Purpose: Run deep strategy analysis using vaults.fyi's historical data and benchmark infrastructure alongside Zerion wallet context to answer questions no other DeFi data source can.
zerion portfolio <address> — current portfolio for contextzerion positions <address> — existing DeFi positionszerion pnl <address> — realized P&L for comparison with vault returnsvault_details — full vault metadata, score, curator, protocol, feesvault_apy_history — historical APY over configurable windowsvault_tvl_history — historical TVL trendsvault_history — share price history for precise return calculationvault_returns — realized returns for a specific walletbenchmark_apy — current network benchmark ratebenchmark_apy_history — historical benchmark for rate environment analysiscurators — list and normalize curator namesvaults_search — search by curator, asset, network, protocolnpm install -g zerion-cliexport ZERION_API_KEY="zk_..."Compare historical performance of two or more vaults to quantify the difference a decision would have made.
For each vault being compared:
vault_apy_history for the comparison window (30, 60, or 90 days). Set fromTimestamp to the start of the window (e.g. current unix timestamp minus 2592000 for 30 days) — without it, the API returns data from vault creation.vault_history for share price data over the same period. Use the same fromTimestamp.vault_tvl_history to understand capital flow context. Use the same fromTimestamp.vault_details for current score, fees, and flags.Using share price history (the most accurate method):
(end_share_price - start_share_price) / start_share_pricehypothetical_value = deposit_amount * (end_share_price / start_share_price)Account for fees: share price already reflects performance fees on most vaults, but note management fees or withdrawal fees that would apply on exit.
If the user provides an address, show their actual returns in the current vault:
zerion pnl <address>
Call vaults.fyi vault_returns with the wallet address and vault to get realized return data. Compare actual returns against what the alternative vault would have delivered.
| Metric | Current Vault | Alternative Vault |
|---|---|---|
| Period return | ||
| Annualized return | ||
| Hypothetical value on $10,000 | ||
| APY stability (high/low range) | ||
| TVL trend | ||
| Score | ||
| Fees |
State the dollar difference clearly: "Over the last 30 days, vault B would have earned $X more on a $10,000 position."
Use benchmark infrastructure to characterize the current yield market and identify anomalies.
For target networks (default: mainnet, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism):
benchmark_apy with code: "usd" and code: "eth" for current rates.benchmark_apy_history for 30-day and 90-day windows.For each network and benchmark:
When rates are elevated:
vaults_search sorted by apy30day descending to find the top-yielding vaults.vault_details on the top yielders to check for reward tokens or incentive flags.If the user has a wallet, compare their current positions against the environment:
zerion positions <address>
Flag positions that are earning below the compressed benchmark — those are underperforming even in a bad market.
Evaluate curators by their historical performance, risk management, and vault quality.
Call curators to normalize names. Then for each curator:
vaults_search with curators: [name], sortBy: "tvl", sortOrder: "desc" to get all their vaults.vault_apy_history for 30-day performance.vault_details for score, flags, and fees.For each curator, aggregate:
| Metric | Curator A | Curator B | Curator C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vaults managed | |||
| Total TVL | |||
| TVL-weighted avg APY (30d) | |||
| Average score | |||
| Score range (min–max) | |||
| Active incidents | |||
| Historical incidents | |||
| Networks active on | |||
| Assets managed | |||
| APY consistency (range over 30d) |
Rank curators on:
If the user holds positions with any of these curators, show their exposure:
zerion positions <address>
transactionalProperties. A vault with redeemStepsType: "complex" (e.g., quarterly settlement, multi-day cooldowns) is less suitable for active rebalancing strategies. A vault with depositStepsType: "complex" has higher operational cost to enter. Include flow type in curator and vault assessments.