wind-alice/bull_bear_case_builder_skill

Bull Bear Case Builder Skill

Data Dependency and Prerequisites

It is recommended to use the WIND wind-mcp-skill to obtain underlying data. Before execution, check if wind-mcp-skill is already available locally; if not, prompt the user to install it:

# GitHub
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y

# Gitee Mirror (Domestic)
npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y

Skill Purpose

This skill is used to systematically construct both bullish and bearish arguments around a core stock thesis, and to compare the evidence, assumptions, catalysts, and vulnerabilities of each side. The output is not about "taking sides" but about helping users identify the variables most worth debating, thereby reducing emotional judgments and confirmation bias.

Execution Flow

Step 1: Define the Debate Proposition and Boundaries

First, clarify what specific question this debate is answering. For example:

• Does this stock offer excess return opportunities in the next 6-12 months?
• Is the current stock price overvalued or undervalued for a particular business change?
• Is the recent rally a trend start or emotional exhaustion?

Also define the time horizon, discussion subject, and acceptable scope of evidence to avoid mixing long-term logic with short-term trading.

Step 2: Collect Common Base Facts for Both Sides

First, compile neutral, unbiased basic information that will serve as a shared foundation for both bullish and bearish cases. This includes:

• The company's business and position in the value chain
• Recent operational changes, announcements, and financial performance
• Core variables the market is focused on
• Current valuation and stock price level

At this stage, avoid rushing to conclusions; the focus is on organizing the factual material that both sides will reference.

Step 3: Build the Bullish Argument

Construct a complete chain around the strongest upside logic:

• What is the market potentially underestimating?
• Which variable is improving?
• Why is this improvement sustainable?
• Once validated, where does the stock price elasticity come from?

The bullish argument should be as specific as possible regarding operational variables, event catalysts, and earnings revision paths, rather than vague statements like "large industry space" or "great company."

Step 4: Build the Bearish Argument

Construct a corresponding chain around the strongest bearish logic:

• What is the market potentially overestimating?
• Which improvements might only be temporary noise?
• What constraints could prevent the logic from materializing?
• If expectations are not met, how will valuation and sentiment backfire?

The bearish argument should not be mere nitpicking, but must focus on the key variables that could truly lead to investment failure.

Step 5: Compare Evidence Strength and Trigger Conditions

Place both sides in the same framework and compare, focusing on:

• Which side has more direct and verifiable evidence?
• Which side relies more on unproven extrapolation assumptions?
• Which events will validate one side first?
• Which variables, if they reverse, would invalidate the entire narrative?

If necessary, distinguish between "short-term advantage" and "long-term advantage" to avoid forcing a single time-dimension answer.

Step 6: Form a Conclusion and a Tracking List

Finally, provide:

• Which side is currently more dominant, and why?
• What is the confidence level in this conclusion?
• What are the most important verification points to track next?

If the evidence for both sides is still close, clearly state the conditions for "no side taken yet, waiting for verification" rather than pretending to have a clear answer.

Output Structure

---

Bullish vs. Bearish Case for {Stock Name} ({YYYY-MM-DD})

1. Core Debate Proposition

{State the real question the market is debating in 1-2 sentences}

2. Common Fact Base for Both Sides

Fact Item	Current Situation	Relationship to Debate
{Fact 1}	{Description}	{Explanation}
{Fact 2}	{Description}	{Explanation}
{Fact 3}	{Description}	{Explanation}

3. Bullish Argument

• Core Thesis: {One sentence}
• Key Evidence: {2-3 points}
• Key Catalysts: {Events or variables}
• Most Vulnerable Assumption: {One sentence}

4. Bearish Argument

• Core Thesis: {One sentence}
• Key Evidence: {2-3 points}
• Key Triggers: {Events or variables}
• Most Vulnerable Assumption: {One sentence}

5. Comparative Assessment

Dimension	Bullish	Bearish	Currently Favored Side
Directness of Evidence	{Description}	{Description}	{Bullish/Bearish/Close}
Verifiability	{Description}	{Description}	{Bullish/Bearish/Close}
Time Sensitivity	{Description}	{Description}	{Bullish/Bearish/Close}
Payoff Impact	{Description}	{Description}	{Bullish/Bearish/Close}

6. Current Conclusion

• Currently Favored Direction: {Bullish / Bearish / No Side Taken Yet}
• Reason: {Brief explanation}
• Confidence Level: {High / Medium / Low}

7. Verification Points to Track Next

• {Verification Point 1}
• {Verification Point 2}
• {Verification Point 3}

---

Quality Requirements

1. Both bullish and bearish sides must use the same set of facts to avoid "double standards."
2. Both the bullish and bearish arguments must be written in their strongest form, not as straw men.
3. Conclusions must be anchored to specific variables and verification conditions, not vague attitudes.
4. If evidence on either side is clearly weak, state it directly; do not seek false balance.
5. The output goal is to help identify the core disagreements, not to produce an emotionally charged opinion piece.