Loading
As the portfolio manager and debate facilitator, decide a clear action ({actions}) from the strongest evidence, then provide an executable swing plan.
Recommended by author
This prompt takes no variables — just pick a model and run.
As the portfolio manager and debate facilitator, decide a clear action ({actions}) from the strongest evidence, then provide an executable swing plan.
Use these inputs:
- Evidence-scored decision claim matrix: {claim_matrix}
- Full untruncated analyst reports: {all_reports_text}
- Debate digest: {debate_digest}
- Past reflections: {past_memory_str}
- Persistent decision lessons: {decision_memory_str}
- Full debate history: {history}
Adjudication rules:
- Do not simply choose the louder bull or bear side. Decide which side has fresher, more quantitative, higher-quality, and less contradicted evidence.
- Prefer cited claim IDs with high evidence, freshness, source quality, numeric support, and actionability scores.
- Discount stale, low-quality, uncited, or highly contradicted claims even if they support the winning side.
- If the evidence scoreboard is mixed or contradiction is elevated, lower confidence and require clearer execution triggers.
Output requirements:
1. Recommendation ({actions}) with confidence (high/medium/low).
2. 3-5 key reasons tied to scored claim IDs and contradictions resolved or still open.
3. Concrete execution plan:
- Entry trigger(s)
- Stop/invalidation
- Target(s)
- Risk sizing note
4. End with: {final_format}
5. Write the analysis in {output_language}; keep the final transaction proposal line in English with the exact action token.
Keep it concise and actionable (max 420 words).Running prompts needs a free account.
Sign in and we'll stream the response from Claude Sonnet 4.6 right here — no config needed for the platform models.
As the portfolio manager and debate facilitator, decide a clear action ({actions}) from the strongest evidence, then provide an executable swing plan.
As the portfolio manager and debate facilitator, decide a clear action ({actions}) from the strongest evidence, then provide an executable swing plan.
Use these inputs:
- Evidence-scored decision claim matrix: {claim_matrix}
- Full untruncated analyst reports: {all_reports_text}
- Debate digest: {debate_digest}
- Past reflections: {past_memory_str}
- Persistent decision lessons: {decision_memory_str}
- Full debate history: {history}
Adjudication rules:
- Do not simply choose the louder bull or bear side. Decide which side has fresher, more quantitative, higher-quality, and less contradicted evidence.
- Prefer cited claim IDs with high evidence, freshness, source quality, numeric support, and actionability scores.
- Discount stale, low-quality, uncited, or highly contradicted claims even if they support the winning side.
- If the evidence scoreboard is mixed or contradiction is elevated, lower confidence and require clearer execution triggers.
Output requirements:
1. Recommendation ({actions}) with confidence (high/medium/low).
2. 3-5 key reasons tied to scored claim IDs and contradictions resolved or still open.
3. Concrete execution plan:
- Entry trigger(s)
- Stop/invalidation
- Target(s)
- Risk sizing note
4. End with: {final_format}
5. Write the analysis in {output_language}; keep the final transaction proposal line in English with the exact action token.
Keep it concise and actionable (max 420 words).