Data Dependencies and Execution Prerequisites
It is recommended to use Wind wind-mcp-skill to obtain the underlying data. Before execution, first check whether wind-mcp-skillalready exists locally; if not, prompt the user to install:
# GitHub
npx skills add Wind-Information-Co-Ltd/wind-skills --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
# Gitee 镜像（国内）
npx skills add https://gitee.com/wind_info/wind-skills.git --skill wind-mcp-skill -g -y
Skill Positioning
This skill is used to analyze changes in institutional holdings, answering "which directions have been significantly increased or decreased by institutions, what consensus these changes reflect, whether they are high-conviction additions or passive adjustments, and what they mean for the subsequent market and individual stocks". The output focus is not a simple comparison of the number of shares held, but an explanation of the preference shifts and potential impacts behind changes in holdings.
Execution Process
Step 1: Confirm the sample scope, reporting period and interpretation criteria
First clarify the sample and boundaries of this study:
- Which type of institution is being observed
- Whether it covers a single stock, an industry, or a larger stock pool
- Which reporting period it corresponds to
- Whether the user is more concerned about changes in institutional consensus, or the actions of a few core institutions
At the same time, users should be reminded: institutional holdings disclosures usually involve a time lag, and conclusions should be interpreted in light of this.
Step 2: Sort out the overall characteristics of holdings changes
First make an overall judgment:
- Which industries or styles are being concentratedly increased
- Which directions are being systematically decreased
- Whether institutional holdings are more concentrated or more dispersed
- Whether the original popular directions are still strengthening, or beginning to loosen
The goal of this stage is to first see the big picture clearly.
Step 3: Break down key companies and representative changes
Further focus on the most representative holdings changes:
- Which companies were significantly increased
- Which companies were significantly decreased
- Which changes come from continued adding to existing core positions
- Which changes reflect institutions shifting from old mainlines to new mainlines
Priority should be given to selecting samples that can represent changes in consensus, rather than mechanically listing all names.
Step 4: Distinguish high-conviction repositioning from passive changes
Changes in institutional holdings do not all carry the same meaning and require further judgment:
- Whether it is an active expression of a view, or a passive change due to price movements, benchmark adjustments or liquidity reasons
- Whether increases are accompanied by higher concentration
- Whether decreases represent a weakening view, or phased realization
- Whether there is increased disagreement among institutions rather than a single strengthened consensus
Step 5: Distill implications for industries, themes and individual stocks
Around the repositioning results, explain:
- Which industries or themes are gaining support from institutional consensus
- Which companies may receive valuation and liquidity support due to increased institutional holdings
- How risk should be assessed for companies if institutions retreat
- Which subsequent operating or market signals are needed to verify whether institutional judgments are correct
Step 6: Form the final institutional repositioning insight draft
The final output should help users understand where institutional consensus is heading and how to view this disclosure information. The main text should retain only holdings changes, preference interpretation, limitations and a validation framework.
Output Structure
Institutional Repositioning Insights ({reporting period})
I. 30-second conclusion
- Institutional preference direction for the period:{content}
- Most obvious increase clue:{content}
- Most obvious decrease clue:{content}
- Current implication:{consensus strengthening / divergence increasing / structural rotation}
II. Overall position changes
| Dimension | Current performance | Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Industry level | {content} | {judgment} |
| Style level | {content} | {judgment} |
| Concentration change | {content} | {judgment} |
III. Changes in key companies
- Companies with notable increases:{content}
- Companies with notable decreases:{content}
- Most representative position adjustment action:{content}
IV. Judgment on the nature of position adjustments
- High-conviction active adjustments:{content}
- Possible passive changes:{content}
- Institutional points of divergence:{content}
V. Market implications and risk warnings
- Implications for industries/themes:{content}
- Implications for individual stocks:{content}
- Interpretation limitations:{content}
VI. Follow-up observation checklist
- {observation point 1}
- {observation point 2}
- {observation point 3}
Quality requirements
- Institutional position analysis must remind of disclosure lag and avoid treating historical holdings directly as current actions.
- It is necessary to distinguish active high-conviction position adjustments from passive changes to improve the credibility of the explanation.
- It must cover all three levels: industry, style, and key individual stocks.
- If there is obvious divergence among institutions, it should be clearly stated rather than forcibly summarized as a unified consensus.
- The output should help users understand the migration of institutional preferences, rather than merely listing holdings.