Data dependencies and execution prerequisites
Use Wind is recommended wind-mcp-skill to obtain 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 systematically build two sets of arguments, bullish and bearish, around the core thesis of a stock, and compare the evidence, assumptions, catalysts, and vulnerabilities of both sides. The output focus is not "taking sides," but helping users identify the variables currently most worth debating, reducing emotional judgment and confirmation bias.
Execution process
Step 1: Define the debate thesis and discussion boundaries
First clarify what question this argument is actually answering, for example:
- Whether this stock has an excess return opportunity over the next 6-12 months
- Whether the current stock price overvalues or undervalues a certain business change
- Whether the recent rise is the start of a trend or emotional overextension
At the same time, define the time dimension, discussion object, and acceptable scope of evidence, avoiding mixing long-term logic with short-term trading.
Step 2: Collect the basic facts shared by both sides
First organize neutral basic information to serve as the common foundation used by both the bull and bear sides later, including:
- The company's business and position in the industry chain
- Recent operating changes, announcements, and financial performance
- The core variables the market is watching
- Current valuation and stock price position
At this stage, do not rush to conclusions; the focus is to organize the factual materials that both sides will cite.
Step 3: Build the bullish argument
Around the strongest upside logic, build a complete chain:
- What the market may be underestimating
- Which variable is improving
- Why that improvement is sustainable
- Once verified, where the stock price elasticity comes from
The bullish argument should be as specific as possible to operating variables, event milestones, and expectation revision paths, rather than only writing vague expressions such as "large industry space" or "excellent company."
Step 4: Build the bearish argument
Around the strongest opposing logic, build the corresponding chain:
- What the current market may be overestimating
- Which improvements may be only temporary noise
- Which constraints will hinder the logic from materializing
- If expectations are not met, how valuation and sentiment will backfire
The bearish argument must not become mechanical nitpicking, but should focus on the key variables that would truly cause investment failure.
Step 5: Compare the strength of evidence and trigger conditions
Put both the bull and bear sides under the same framework for comparison, focusing on:
- Which side's evidence is more direct and more verifiable
- Which side relies more on unverified extrapolated assumptions
- Which events will first validate one side
- Which variables, once reversed, will invalidate the entire narrative
When necessary, distinguish between "who has the advantage in the short term" and "who has the advantage in the long term," avoiding forcing a single answer on one time dimension.
Step 6: Form conclusions and a follow-up tracking checklist
Finally provide:
- Which side currently has the advantage, and what the reasons are
- How high the confidence level of this conclusion is
- What verification points most need to be tracked next
If the evidence on both sides remains close, the condition of “taking no side for now, awaiting verification” should also be clearly stated, rather than pretending that a clear answer already exists.
Output Structure
{Stock Name} Bull-Bear Argument ({YYYY-MM-DD})
I. Core Proposition of the Debate
{Use 1-2 sentences to explain the issue the market is truly debating right now}
II. Shared Factual Foundation for Both Sides
| Fact Item | Current Situation | Relationship to the Debate |
|---|---|---|
| {Fact 1} | {Description} | {Explanation} |
| {Fact 2} | {Description} | {Explanation} |
| {Fact 3} | {Description} | {Explanation} |
III. Bull Case
- Core View:{One sentence}
- Main Evidence:{2-3 items}
- Key Catalyst:{Event or variable}
- Most Fragile Assumption:{One sentence}
IV. Bear Case
- Core View:{One sentence}
- Main Evidence:{2-3 items}
- Key Trigger:{Event or variable}
- Most Fragile Assumption:{One sentence}
V. Comparative Judgment
| Dimension | Bull | Bear | Currently Dominant Side |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directness of Evidence | {Description} | {Description} | {Bull/Bear/Close} |
| Verifiability | {Description} | {Description} | {Bull/Bear/Close} |
| Time Sensitivity | {Description} | {Description} | {Bull/Bear/Close} |
| Odds Impact | {Description} | {Description} | {Bull/Bear/Close} |
VI. Current Conclusion
- Currently More Dominant Direction:{Bull / Bear / Take no side for now}
- Reason:{Brief explanation}
- Confidence:{High / Medium / Low}
VII. Verification Points That Must Be Tracked Next
- {Verification Point 1}
- {Verification Point 2}
- {Verification Point 3}
Quality Requirements
- Both bulls and bears must use the same set of factual foundations to avoid “double standards.”
- Both the bull and bear cases should be written in their strongest versions, rather than turning the opposing side into a straw man.
- The conclusion must land on specific variables and verification conditions, and cannot merely give a vague attitude.
- If the evidence on one side is clearly weak, it should be pointed out directly, without superficial balance.
- The output goal is to help judge the disagreement, not to write an emotional piece taking sides.