152 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
152 lines
6.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: property-assessor
|
|
description: Assess a real property from an address or listing URL and produce a decision-grade summary. Use when a user wants fair value, comps, rental or STR viability, carry-cost review, HOA or insurance risk analysis, or offer guidance for a condo, house, townhouse, or similar residential property. Prefer when the task should discover and reconcile multiple listing sources from a street address first, then give a buy/pass/only-below-X verdict.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Property Assessor
|
|
|
|
Start from the property address when possible. Treat listing URLs as supporting evidence, not the only source of truth.
|
|
|
|
## Inputs
|
|
|
|
Accept any of:
|
|
- a street address
|
|
- one or more listing URLs
|
|
- an address plus user constraints such as investment only, owner-occupant, long-term rental, STR, or distance to a target location
|
|
|
|
## Core workflow
|
|
|
|
1. Normalize the address and property type.
|
|
2. Discover accessible listing or public-record sources for the same property.
|
|
3. Establish a baseline fact set from the best available source.
|
|
4. Cross-check the same property on other sites.
|
|
5. Pull same-building comps for condos or nearby comps for houses/townhomes.
|
|
6. Underwrite carrying cost with taxes, HOA, insurance, and realistic friction.
|
|
7. Flag risk drivers before giving a verdict.
|
|
8. End with a specific recommendation: `buy`, `pass`, or `only below X`.
|
|
|
|
## Source order
|
|
|
|
Prefer this order unless the user says otherwise:
|
|
1. Zillow
|
|
2. Redfin
|
|
3. Realtor.com
|
|
4. HAR / Homes.com / brokerage mirror pages
|
|
5. county or appraisal pages
|
|
|
|
Use the `web-automation` skill for rendered pages and anti-bot-heavy sites.
|
|
Use `web_search` sparingly to discover alternate URLs, then return to `web-automation` for extraction.
|
|
|
|
## Minimum data to capture
|
|
|
|
For the target property, capture when available:
|
|
- address
|
|
- ask price or last known list price
|
|
- property type
|
|
- beds / baths
|
|
- sqft
|
|
- lot size if relevant
|
|
- year built
|
|
- HOA fee and included services
|
|
- taxes
|
|
- days on market
|
|
- price history
|
|
- parking
|
|
- waterfront / flood clues
|
|
- subdivision / building name when applicable
|
|
- same-building or nearby active inventory
|
|
- listing photos and visible condition cues
|
|
- included appliances and obvious missing appliances
|
|
- flooring mix, especially whether carpet is present
|
|
|
|
## Photo and condition review
|
|
|
|
Always look at the listing photos when they are available. Do not rate a property only from structured text.
|
|
|
|
### Required photo-access workflow
|
|
|
|
When the source site exposes listing photos, prefer the **most accessible all-photos view** first. This can be:
|
|
- a scrollable all-photos page
|
|
- a photo grid
|
|
- an expanded photo list
|
|
- or, if necessary, a modal gallery/lightbox
|
|
|
|
Use `web-automation` for this. Preferred process:
|
|
1. Open the listing page.
|
|
2. Click the photo entry point such as `See all photos`, `See all 29 photos`, `Show all photos`, or the main hero image.
|
|
3. If that opens a scrollable all-photos view, grid, or photo page that clearly exposes the listing images, use that directly for photo review.
|
|
4. Only use next-arrow / slideshow traversal when the site does not provide an accessible all-photos view.
|
|
5. If you must use a modal/lightbox, verify that you are seeing distinct images, not just a gallery preview tile or repeated screenshot of the first image.
|
|
6. Review enough images to cover the key rooms and exterior, and for smaller listings aim to review all photos when practical.
|
|
7. If photo access fails or is incomplete, say so explicitly and do not claim that you reviewed all photos.
|
|
|
|
Minimum honesty rule: never say you "looked at all photos" unless the site actually exposed the full set and you successfully reviewed them.
|
|
A gallery landing page, collage preview, repeated first image, or a single screenshot of the listing page does **not** count as full photo review.
|
|
|
|
### What to inspect in the photos
|
|
|
|
At minimum, note:
|
|
- overall finish level: dated, average, lightly updated, fully updated
|
|
- kitchen condition: cabinets, counters, backsplash, appliance quality
|
|
- bathroom condition: vanity, tile, surrounds, fixtures
|
|
- flooring: tile, vinyl, laminate, hardwood, carpet
|
|
- whether carpet appears in bedrooms, stairs, or living areas
|
|
- obvious make-ready issues: paint, damaged trim, old fixtures, mismatched finishes, worn surfaces
|
|
- visible missing items: refrigerator, washer/dryer, range hood, dishwasher, etc.
|
|
- any signs of deferred maintenance or water intrusion visible in photos
|
|
- exterior/common-area condition when visible
|
|
- balconies, decks, sliders, windows, and waterfront-facing elements for condos/townhomes near water
|
|
|
|
### If photo review is incomplete
|
|
|
|
If photos are weak, incomplete, blocked, or the gallery automation fails:
|
|
- say so explicitly
|
|
- lower confidence
|
|
- avoid strong condition claims
|
|
- do not infer turnkey condition from marketing text alone
|
|
|
|
## Normalization / make-ready adjustment
|
|
|
|
Estimate a rough make-ready budget when condition is not turnkey. The goal is not contractor precision; the goal is apples-to-apples comparison.
|
|
|
|
Use simple buckets and state them as rough ranges:
|
|
- light make-ready: paint, fixtures, minor hardware, patching
|
|
- medium make-ready: flooring replacement in some rooms, appliance replacement, bathroom refresh
|
|
- heavy make-ready: major kitchen/bath work, widespread flooring, obvious deferred maintenance
|
|
|
|
Call out carpet separately. If carpet is present, estimate replacement or removal cost as part of the make-ready note.
|
|
|
|
## Underwriting rules
|
|
|
|
Always show a simple carrying-cost view with at least:
|
|
- principal and interest if available from the listing
|
|
- taxes per month
|
|
- HOA per month if applicable
|
|
- insurance estimate or note uncertainty
|
|
- realistic effective carry range after maintenance, vacancy, and property-specific risk
|
|
|
|
Treat these as strong caution flags:
|
|
- high HOA relative to price or expected rent
|
|
- older waterfront or coastal exposure
|
|
- unknown reserve / assessment history for condos
|
|
- many active units in the same building or micro-area
|
|
- stale days on market with weak price action
|
|
- no clear rent support
|
|
|
|
## Output format
|
|
|
|
Keep the answer concise but decision-grade:
|
|
|
|
1. Snapshot
|
|
2. What I like
|
|
3. What I do not like
|
|
4. Comp view
|
|
5. Underwriting / carry view
|
|
6. Risks and diligence items
|
|
7. Verdict with fair value range and offer guidance
|
|
|
|
## Reuse notes
|
|
|
|
When condos are involved, same-building comps and HOA economics usually matter more than neighborhood averages.
|
|
For detailed heuristics and the reusable memo template, read `references/underwriting-rules.md`.
|