analysis
Analysis
Run a deeper one-symbol analysis workflow for: $ARGUMENTS
Overview
- Implementation status: code-backed
- Local entry script:
<bundle-root>/analysis/run.py - Primary purpose: build a research memo that enforces institutional thesis discipline through mandatory structural elements: explicit thesis statement, identified key drivers, articulated variant views, disconfirming evidence, and invalidation conditions
- Research layer: deeper memo that may compose descriptive, decision, and execution layers, but must pressure-test them rather than simply restate them
- Workflow stages: stage 1
Strategy Framing, stage 4Signal and State Interpretation, and stage 6Decision Contextat memo depth - Local executor guarantee: generate a persisted research packet and artifact set that the agent can elevate into a thesis-disciplined memo
Use When
- The user asks "why," "what drives this," "what are the risks," or "what would change your view."
- The user wants a research memo suitable for investment committee review or retrospective evaluation.
- The user needs saved artifacts that will later feed
analysis-history,reports, orbacktest-evaluator. - The user explicitly requests depth, thesis framing, catalyst analysis, or risk pressure-testing.
- The user wants to understand not just current state but what could go wrong or what would invalidate the current view.
Do Not Use When
- The user wants the default concise full-stock brief. Use
market-brief. - The user only wants direct action, quantity, or stop and take-profit anchors. Use
decision-support. - The user only wants execution zones and checklist output. Use
strategy-design. - The user wants artifact retrieval or comparison rather than fresh computation. Use
reportsoranalysis-history. - The user wants batch triage rather than one-symbol depth. Use
market-screenordecision-dashboard. - The available evidence is too thin to support thesis-level claims. In this case, either narrow to
market-briefor acknowledge evidence gaps explicitly.
Inputs
- Normal case: one stock symbol.
- Optional market inputs:
--csv,--start,--end,--source. - Optional account inputs:
--capital,--cash,--position,--risk,--max-position. - Optional planning inputs:
--style,--hold-days,--depth compact|standard|deep,--strategy STRATEGY_ID(repeatable). - Optional news inputs:
--headline,--headline-file,--company-name,--alias,--max-items. - If
symbolis omitted, the skill may reuselast_symbolfrom the same execution context. - Important assumption boundary: any benchmark, scenario, or portfolio assumption that comes from the user prompt rather than the local executor must be labeled as a user-supplied assumption in the final memo.
Execution
Step 1: Confirm evidence sufficiency for thesis-level analysis
Before proceeding, assess whether the available evidence supports thesis-level claims. Thesis-level analysis requires:
- Sufficient price history to identify trend structure and regime
- Observable technical or fundamental drivers that can be articulated specifically
- Enough context to frame at least one plausible alternative interpretation
If evidence is insufficient, either:
- Route to
market-brieffor a descriptive synthesis without thesis claims, or - Proceed with
analysisbut explicitly narrow the thesis section to acknowledge evidence gaps
Step 2: Run the local executor
python3 <bundle-root>/analysis/run.py <symbol> [--headline-file PATH] [--depth standard] [--strategy STRATEGY_ID]
Step 3: Structure the memo with mandatory thesis discipline
The analysis memo must include these structural elements when evidence permits:
Thesis Statement (mandatory):
- One clear sentence stating the investment view
- Must be falsifiable: a thesis that cannot be wrong is not a thesis
- Example: "600519 is positioned for a trend continuation based on institutional accumulation and sector rotation tailwinds"
Key Drivers (mandatory, 3-5 maximum):
- Specific, observable factors supporting the thesis
- Ranked by importance
- Each driver must be concrete enough to monitor
- Example: "1) Net institutional inflow over 10 consecutive sessions, 2) Sector relative strength vs. benchmark, 3) Technical breakout above 200-day resistance"
Primary Catalyst (mandatory when identifiable):
- The single most important near-term event or condition that would validate or accelerate the thesis
- Must have observable timing or trigger conditions
- If no clear catalyst exists, state that explicitly: "No identifiable near-term catalyst; thesis depends on continuation of current technical structure"
Variant View (mandatory):
- At least one alternative interpretation of the same evidence
- Must be intellectually honest, not a strawman
- Should articulate why a reasonable investor might reach a different conclusion
- Example: "Alternative view: current strength reflects late-cycle momentum exhaustion rather than institutional accumulation; volume profile suggests retail participation rather than smart money"
Disconfirming Evidence (mandatory):
- Specific observations that weaken or contradict the thesis
- Must be current and material, not hypothetical
- If no material disconfirming evidence exists, state that explicitly but acknowledge this is unusual
- Example: "Disconfirming: sector breadth is narrowing, with only 30% of sector constituents above their 50-day MA despite index strength"
Invalidation Conditions (mandatory):
- Specific, observable conditions that would falsify the thesis
- Must include both price-based and non-price-based conditions
- Should be monitorable in real-time or near-real-time
- Example: "Thesis invalidated if: 1) price closes below 180 support on volume, 2) sector relative strength turns negative for 3+ sessions, 3) institutional flow reverses to net selling"
Evidence Gaps (mandatory when material):
- Explicit acknowledgment of what is not known or not observable
- Should state what additional information would strengthen or weaken the thesis
- Example: "Evidence gaps: no visibility into institutional mandate changes, limited fundamental disclosure on Q4 margins, unclear regulatory timeline for sector policy"
Step 4: Separate layers explicitly
When the memo includes decision support or execution planning layers, keep them visibly distinct:
- Use clear section headers or transitions
- Restate the account or style assumptions that drive those layers
- Do not let action or execution framing masquerade as thesis validation
Step 5: Preserve the artifact trail
Reference the generated run directory when handing off to reports, analysis-history, or backtest-evaluator. The artifact should be complete enough to support retrospective evaluation without requiring conversational context.
Output Contract
- Minimum local executor output: human-readable text beginning with
# <symbol> Analysis. - Minimum local sections:
Data Perspective,Intelligence,Battle Plan, andWorkflow Blueprintwhen available. - Artifact side effects: writes one dated run directory with
state.json,report.md, andmetadata.json. - Caller-facing delivery standard:
- Mandatory thesis structure: every analysis memo must include thesis statement, key drivers, primary catalyst (or explicit statement that none exists), variant view, disconfirming evidence, and invalidation conditions
- Evidence sufficiency: if any mandatory element cannot be supported by available evidence, state that gap explicitly rather than fabricating content
- Provenance separation: distinguish computed facts from heuristic interpretation, optional enrichments from core analysis, and user-supplied assumptions from local defaults
- Manual context handling: if manual headlines are used, label them as user-supplied or file-backed context and explicitly state they are not independently verified
- Confidence framing: treat numeric
confidencefields as heuristic conviction scores, never as statistical hit-rate estimates or calibrated probabilities - Layer visibility: keep the distinction between descriptive analysis, decision support, and execution planning visible; do not collapse the memo into a disguised order ticket
- Non-modeled risks: when decision or execution layers are included, surface material non-modeled risks including catalyst uncertainty, liquidity constraints, gap risk, limit behavior, and stop slippage
Failure Handling
- Parse and argument errors: non-zero exit with a readable
命令错误message. - Market-data failures: readable failure text beginning with
执行失败:. - Optional fundamentals degrade fail-open through the shared helper.
- If
--headline-fileis unreadable or malformed, the command returns readable执行失败:text. - Evidence-thin scenarios: if the available evidence cannot support thesis-level claims, either:
- Route to
market-brieffor descriptive synthesis without thesis structure, or - Proceed with
analysisbut explicitly acknowledge evidence gaps in each mandatory section - Never pad evidence-thin sections with generic narrative or fabricated conviction
- Route to
Key Rules
- Depth means better pressure-testing, not just more words. The value of
analysisovermarket-briefis structural thesis discipline, not length. - Thesis structure is mandatory, not optional. If evidence cannot support a thesis element, acknowledge the gap explicitly.
- Variant views must be intellectually honest. Do not create strawman alternatives just to fill the section.
- Invalidation conditions must be specific and monitorable. Vague conditions like "if the market changes" are not acceptable.
- Preserve explicit provenance for any news, fundamental, or user-supplied context.
- Do not present heuristic confidence or battle-plan outputs as order instructions.
- Route to
decision-supportorstrategy-designwhen the user wants the narrower action or execution layer rather than the full memo.
Composition
- Builds on
market-data,market-analyze,decision-support,strategy-design, and optionalnews-intellogic. - Produces artifacts that can feed
reports,analysis-history, andbacktest-evaluator. - Often serves as the deepest one-symbol artifact before retrospective evaluation.
- Should be the default choice when the user's question implies they need thesis-level rigor rather than just current-state description.