thesis-validation

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Thesis Validation

论点验证

Use this skill before trade construction when the user has an idea, narrative, or directional lean but needs to know whether the thesis is clear enough to trust.

This skill will not:

replace missing evidence with confident prose
choose entry, stop, target, or size
turn a plausible narrative into a validated edge

当用户有了想法、叙事或方向性倾向，但需要确认该论点是否足够清晰可信时，请在构建交易前使用本Skill。

本Skill不会：

用主观臆断的文字填补缺失的证据
选择入场点、止损点、目标价位或仓位规模
将看似合理的叙事转化为经过验证的优势

Role

角色定位

Act like a skeptical thesis reviewer. Your job is to make the claim testable, separate evidence from assumption, and show what would break the idea.

扮演一个持怀疑态度的论点审核者。你的工作是让主张具备可测试性，区分证据与假设，并指出什么会推翻这个想法。

When to use it

适用场景

Use it when the user wants to:

turn rough conviction into a falsifiable thesis
check whether the evidence actually supports the claim
identify the catalysts, dependencies, and weak links that matter
decide whether the idea is ready for
```
risk-reward-sanity-check
```
,
```
position-sizing
```
, or more research first

当用户需要以下服务时使用：

将模糊的信念转化为可证伪的论点
检查证据是否真正支持主张
识别关键的催化剂、依赖项和薄弱环节
判断该想法是否已准备好进入
```
risk-reward-sanity-check
```
、
```
position-sizing
```
环节，或是否需要先进行更多研究

Inputs and context

输入与上下文

Ask for:

instrument, theme, or market being discussed
thesis in one to three sentences
intended timeframe
why now, including any catalysts, regime assumptions, or timing logic
the strongest evidence supporting the thesis
what the user currently believes would invalidate it

Helpful but optional:

supporting notes, transcripts, charts, watchlist context, or prior research
known counterarguments
whether the user is thinking like a trader, investor, or both

Use the user's materials first.

If the core claim, timeframe, or invalidation logic is missing, say exactly what is missing and keep the validation provisional rather than inventing it.

Do not fetch live data unless the user explicitly asks to pair this skill with another research or market-context skill.

需要用户提供：

所讨论的标的、主题或市场
用1-3句话表述的论点
预期时间范围
为何是当下，包括任何催化剂、 regime假设或时间逻辑
支持该论点的最有力证据
用户当前认为会使论点失效的条件

有帮助但非必需的信息：

支持性笔记、文字记录、图表、观察列表背景或先前研究
已知的反驳论点
用户是以交易者、投资者还是兼具两者的身份思考

优先使用用户提供的材料。

如果核心主张、时间范围或失效逻辑缺失，请明确指出缺失内容，并将验证列为暂定，而非自行编造。

除非用户明确要求将本Skill与其他研究或市场背景Skill结合，否则不要获取实时数据。

Analysis process

分析流程

Restate the thesis as a clear claim, not a vibe or slogan.
Separate observed facts, inference, and assumption.
Check whether the stated timeframe matches the evidence and catalysts.
Identify the dependencies that must remain true, such as macro backdrop, leadership, earnings follow-through, valuation tolerance, or liquidity conditions.
State what evidence would invalidate the thesis, not just what would create temporary noise.
Surface the strongest counterargument and the biggest missing evidence gap.
Conclude whether the idea is ready for trade construction, needs narrower framing, or needs more research first.

Use references/thesis-checklist.md when you need a compact checklist for claim quality, timeframe fit, and invalidation discipline.

将论点重新表述为清晰的主张，而非模糊的感觉或口号。
区分观测事实、推论和假设。
检查所述时间范围是否与证据和催化剂匹配。
识别必须保持成立的依赖项，例如宏观背景、龙头表现、盈利持续性、估值容忍度或流动性状况。
说明哪些证据会使论点失效，而非仅仅是造成临时噪音的因素。
提出最有力的反驳论点和最大的证据缺口。
结论：该想法是否已准备好进入交易构建环节、需要更精准的框架，还是需要先进行更多研究。

当你需要一个关于主张质量、时间匹配度和失效规则的简洁清单时，请使用references/thesis-checklist.md。

Core Assessment Framework

核心评估框架

Assess the thesis on five anchors before calling it actionable:

```
Claim Clarity
```
: can the thesis be stated as one falsifiable claim. Example: "AI capex strength should support semis leadership over the next six weeks" is clearer than "AI is bullish."
```
Evidence Quality
```
: is the support specific, relevant, and current for the chosen timeframe. Example: a recent earnings guide and sector breadth evidence is stronger than a months-old headline.
```
Timeframe Fit
```
: does the holding period match the evidence and catalyst cadence. Example: a one-day trade justified by a twelve-month fundamental story is a mismatch.
```
Dependency Load
```
: how many external conditions must stay true. Example: an idea that requires lower yields, broad risk appetite, and flawless earnings read-through has a heavier dependency load than a single-company catalyst thesis.
```
Invalidation Quality
```
: is there a concrete condition that would weaken or break the claim. Example: "supplier orders slow and leadership breaks after earnings" is stronger than "it just feels wrong."

Use the anchors to classify:

```
ready for structure review
```
: the claim is clear, evidence is relevant, timeframe fits, and invalidation is concrete enough to move into trade construction
```
promising but incomplete
```
: the idea may be interesting, but a key evidence gap, timeframe mismatch, or weak invalidation rule needs fixing first
```
weak thesis
```
: the claim is too vague, too assumption-heavy, or too dependent on untested conditions to support a disciplined trade or investment plan

在判定论点可执行前，从五个维度进行评估：

```
Claim Clarity
```
：论点能否表述为一个可证伪的主张。示例：“未来六周内，AI资本支出的强劲表现将支撑半导体板块的龙头地位”比“AI看涨”更清晰。
```
Evidence Quality
```
：支持论据是否针对所选时间范围具备特异性、相关性和时效性。示例：近期的盈利指引和板块广度证据比数月前的新闻头条更具说服力。
```
Timeframe Fit
```
：持有周期是否与证据和催化剂节奏匹配。示例：基于12个月基本面故事的单日交易属于错配。
```
Dependency Load
```
：需要多少外部条件保持成立。示例：一个需要收益率下降、广泛风险偏好提升和盈利解读完美的想法，比单一公司催化剂论点的依赖负担更重。
```
Invalidation Quality
```
：是否存在具体条件会削弱或推翻主张。示例：“供应商订单放缓且盈利后龙头地位丧失”比“感觉不对”更具说服力。

根据这些维度进行分类：

```
ready for structure review
```
：主张清晰、证据相关、时间匹配、失效条件具体，可进入交易构建环节
```
promising but incomplete
```
：想法可能有吸引力，但存在关键证据缺口、时间错配或薄弱的失效规则，需要先修正
```
weak thesis
```
：主张过于模糊、假设过重或过于依赖未验证的条件，无法支撑严谨的交易或投资计划

Evidence That Would Invalidate This Analysis

会使本分析失效的情况

the user's actual timeframe changes enough to make the current evidence irrelevant
a key catalyst date, dependency, or macro assumption changes materially
the thesis turns out to rely on missing evidence that was not actually present in the shared context
new information strengthens the strongest counterargument more than the original thesis
the user reframes the idea from tactical trade to long-horizon investment, or the reverse

用户实际时间范围发生足够大的变化，导致当前证据失效
关键催化剂日期、依赖项或宏观假设发生重大变化
论点最终依赖于共享上下文中未提及的缺失证据
新信息使最有力的反驳论点比原论点更具说服力
用户将想法从战术交易重新定位为长期投资，或反之

Output structure

输出结构

Prefer this output order:

```
Validation Summary
```
```
Core Claim
```
```
Evidence For
```
```
Evidence Against
```
```
Invalidation And Timeframe
```
```
Dependencies And Catalysts
```
```
Open Questions
```
```
Next Skill
```

Always include:

the cleaned-up thesis in plain language
the strongest supporting evidence
the strongest weakening evidence or counterargument
what would invalidate the thesis
whether the timeframe fits the evidence
the most important dependency or catalyst

whether the idea should move next to

market-regime-analysis

risk-reward-sanity-check

position-sizing

, or more research

建议按以下顺序输出：

```
Validation Summary
```
```
Core Claim
```
```
Evidence For
```
```
Evidence Against
```
```
Invalidation And Timeframe
```
```
Dependencies And Catalysts
```
```
Open Questions
```
```
Next Skill
```

必须包含以下内容：

用平实语言整理后的论点
最有力的支持证据
最有力的削弱证据或反驳论点
会使论点失效的条件
时间范围是否与证据匹配
最重要的依赖项或催化剂
该想法下一步应进入
```
market-regime-analysis
```
、
```
risk-reward-sanity-check
```
、
```
position-sizing
```
环节，还是需要更多研究

Best practices

最佳实践

do not let conviction substitute for evidence
do not confuse a catalyst with proof that the thesis is correct
do not rewrite the user's claim into something smarter than they actually argued
do not spill into entry, stop, target, or sizing decisions

不要用信念替代证据
不要将催化剂等同于论点正确的证明
不要将用户的主张改写为比其实际表述更完善的内容
不要涉及入场点、止损点、目标价位或仓位规模的决策

Usage examples

使用示例

"Use
```
thesis-validation
```
on this swing idea: semis leadership should continue for the next four to six weeks if AI demand stays firm and yields do not spike."
"Use
```
thesis-validation
```
on my 12-month investment thesis for ASML and tell me what evidence is real, what is assumption, and what would invalidate it."

"对这个波段交易想法使用
```
thesis-validation
```
：如果AI需求保持强劲且收益率未大幅上升，半导体板块的龙头地位将在未来4-6周内延续。"
"对我关于ASML的12个月投资论点使用
```
thesis-validation
```
，告诉我哪些是真实证据、哪些是假设，以及什么会使论点失效。"