longbridge-ark-analysis

Prompt-only ARK-inspired diagnostic for a single ticker. Runs a suitability gate (must be a disruptive-innovation name), then builds TAM, a Wright's-Law cost-curve note, and a three-scenario 5-year target price. Closes with a mandatory data-source appendix whose final row is a one-line reconciliation summary.

Response language: detect the user's input language (Simplified Chinese / Traditional Chinese / English) and render the entire report — every section heading, label, scenario write-up, narrative, education block, appendix row, reconciliation summary, and disclaimer — in that one language. Do not mix languages within a single output. The output template in references/output.md is shown in English for reference; translate it as a whole into the user's language using the label-translation lookup in that file. The error / source tables inside this SKILL.md remain 3-column because they document what the skill says under each language — that 3-column form is for the skill's reference docs, not for the user-facing report.

Independence statement (mandatory): this skill is an independent implementation inspired by ARK Invest's publicly described methodology. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of ARK Invest or Cathie Wood's actual views or positions. The independence statement must appear in the disclaimer of every output.

When to use

• "用木头姐的方法分析 TSLA" / "用木頭姐的方法分析 TSLA" / "analyze TSLA with the ARK framework"
• "ARK 怎么看 NVDA" / "ARK 怎麼看 NVDA" / "how does ARK see NVDA"
• "PLTR 的颠覆式创新逻辑成立吗" / "PLTR 的顛覆式創新邏輯成立嗎" / "is PLTR a real disruptive-innovation story"
• "帮我算一下 TSLA 5 年的 bull base bear 目标价" / "算一下 TSLA 5 年的 bull base bear 目標價" / "build a 5-year bull/base/bear target on TSLA"
• "AMZN 属于 ARK 的哪个平台" / "AMZN 屬於 ARK 的哪個平台" / "which ARK platform is AMZN in"
• "建行用 ARK 怎么看" / "建行用 ARK 怎麼看" / "would the ARK framework work on CCB" (→ reject + recommend alternative)

For Buffett-style moat analysis → longbridge-buffett-moat-analyzer. For Graham cigar-butt → longbridge-graham-stock-analysis. For pure DCF → longbridge-dcf. For peer benchmarking → longbridge-peer-comparison.

Cognitive frame (do not skip)

ARK's reference is 5-year ownership of disruptive-innovation companies, with three-scenario thinking around a TAM × market-share × margin × multiple terminal value, discounted back. Three things every output must surface:

1. Suitability is a gate, not a soft preference. If the company is not in one of ARK's five innovation platforms (Artificial Intelligence · Robotics & Autonomous Mobility · Energy Storage & EV Adoption · Multiomic Sequencing & AI Drug Discovery · Public Blockchains & Digital Assets — see references/scoring.md §Suitability for the value-chain decomposition into upstream / core / downstream / adjacent tiers, and the convergence themes), reject and recommend an alternative method — do not produce a "for reference" ARK report on a bank, oil major, or consumer staple. A company qualifies if its revenue depends materially on any tier of a platform (upstream / core / downstream / adjacent) — not only on being the platform's headline name.
2. 5-year predictions are wide ranges, not point estimates. TAM and market share are deeply uncertain. The output always shows three scenarios (Bull / Base / Bear) with explicit assumptions; never collapse them to a single confident number, and never present the weighted target price as a forecast — call it a model-derived expectation.
3. Many disruptors have short history — analyse them anyway, on forward inputs. A large share of ARK-style names (RIVN, RXRX, IONQ, BEAM, NTLA, COIN post-pivot, PLTR's commercial-AI era) have 1–3 fiscal years of public history and live almost entirely in the forward thesis. The skill enters Young-company mode (see references/scoring.md §Young-company mode) and explicitly anchors on forward consensus, cash runway, dilution path, capacity roadmap, regulatory milestones, and customer pipeline — not on a backward 5-year operating-leverage curve. Short history alone is not a rejection. Reject reason C is reserved for genuinely pre-revenue names.

Three failure modes the user must be able to distinguish:

• "Right platform, wrong company" → platform fit strong but innovation revenue < 20% or no quantified management vision → ❌ reject; recommend a method that fits the actual revenue mix.
• "Right company, framework limit (pre-revenue)" → fits the platform but truly no commercial revenue base → ❌ reject (reason C); recommend an early-stage framework.
• "Right company, short history but commercial" → fits the platform, has commercial revenue, but < 3 yrs of public scale history → ✅ enter Young-company mode, do not reject.

Workflow

1. Resolve symbol to <CODE>.<MARKET> (e.g. TSLA.US, 00700.HK, 300750.SZ).
2. Sector triage (decides mode + reject branch):
   • Traditional industry (bank / insurance / oil / real estate / staples / utilities not in energy-transition) → halt with reject reason A — Traditional industry (see references/scoring.md §Reject reasons).
   • Being-disrupted incumbent (e.g. ICE auto, fossil-fuel major, legacy media against streaming) → halt with reason B — Being disrupted.
   • Mature tech with disruption already priced in (e.g. mature consumer electronics supply chain) → halt with reason D — Disruption premium already realised.
   • Truly pre-revenue (no commercial product/service revenue, or revenue is < ~$10M annualised with no commercial path in 18 months) → halt with reason C — Data basis insufficient.
   • Has commercial revenue but short public history (listed < 3 fiscal years OR < 3 yrs of scale revenue OR recent business-model pivot OR post-SPAC < 12 months) → enter Young-company mode (see references/scoring.md §Young-company mode). Do not reject. The mode loosens history requirements and adds mandatory forward-looking inputs (forward consensus, cash runway, dilution path, capacity roadmap, regulatory milestones, customer pipeline).
   • Standard mode (commercial revenue + ≥ 3 yrs scale history + no recent pivot) → proceed without mode flag.
3. Fetch raw data via Longbridge CLI first (parallel where possible). See §CLI. If longbridge is missing, fall back to MCP (see §MCP fallback). Use WebSearch only for items genuinely outside Longbridge — TAM figures, Wright's-Law learning rates, qualitative management innovation signals, industry-runway evidence.
4. Reconciliation gate (勾稽校验) — runs before suitability scoring or any analysis. See §Reconciliation. Two-state outcome:
   • Pass (every check within tolerance) → proceed. A one-line summary of the result still appears at the end of the data-source appendix.
   • Fail (any check exceeds tolerance) → halt all downstream analysis, emit a halt message naming the failing check and gap, still print the data-source appendix and the reconciliation summary describing the failure.
5. Suitability scoring — score 4 dimensions on 强/中/弱; apply the pass/reject matrix in references/scoring.md §Suitability. If Young-company mode is active, dimensions are evaluated on the available history (pro-rated, tagged in the appendix) and the management-vision bar is raised — quantified milestones + dated regulatory or commercial gates are now required for 强. If reject, emit the reject layout (see references/output.md §Reject case) with an alternative-method recommendation matched from references/scoring.md §Alternative-method matching. Do not produce a "for reference" ARK analysis on a rejected name.
6. TAM — three tiers (low / base / high), each tagged with a source priority (权威机构 > 公司自披露 > 学术/智库 > ARK 公开报告 > 估算). Estimation-only TAM must be explicitly labelled 估算. See references/scoring.md