| name | risk-debate |
| description | Three-perspective risk evaluation (Aggressive / Conservative / Neutral) of a draft Atlas pick. After the bull/bear debate settles a rating, three orthogonal risk personas each respond to the investment plan. A Portfolio Manager synthesizes their views into a final structured recommendation with entry/exit/stop/account placement. Pattern lifted from TauricResearch/TradingAgents. |
| triggers | ["risk debate","three perspective risk","aggressive conservative neutral","position sizing","downside math","portfolio manager review","risk panel","should I really enter","enter at this size","how much should I buy","what size","oversized position"] |
| tier | research |
| dependencies | ["research-debate","realised-return-reflection"] |
| origin | TauricResearch/TradingAgents (patterns) |
Risk Debate — 3-Perspective Risk Panel
Purpose
After the bull/bear research debate settles a rating, this skill stress-tests how the pick should actually be sized and placed. Three personas with orthogonal mandates each evaluate the same pick:
- Aggressive — champions the upside, presses for bolder position size
- Conservative — protects capital, presses for smaller size or no entry, anchored to CC's "capital preservation > tax optimization > compounding" doctrine
- Neutral — balanced middle path, presses for staged entry and proper account placement (TFSA/RRSP/FHSA)
A Portfolio Manager synthesizes the three views into a final 5-tier rating + entry/exit/stop/account/horizon.
When to Trigger
- Always runs alongside
research-debate when debate_rounds > 0
- Standalone via
from research.debate import run_risk_debate when CC asks "should I really enter at this size"
- When a pick's downside is >15% of position value
- When account placement is non-obvious (e.g. growth stock with US dividend → TFSA vs RRSP trade-off)
How It Works
Investment Plan (from research-debate)
│
▼
Aggressive ◄──┐
│ │ N rounds
▼ │
Conservative ─┤
│ │
▼ │
Neutral ◄────┘
│
▼
Portfolio Manager (deep_think tier)
│
▼
Final rating + entry/exit/stop/account/horizon
The PM receives all three persona transcripts plus past Atlas reflections on the ticker (cross-ticker lessons included) and produces a final structured recommendation.
Output Format
- Rating — one of Buy / Overweight / Hold / Underweight / Sell
- Final recommendation — 4-8 sentence prose with concrete entry zone, exit target, stop level, account placement, time horizon
- Revisit conditions — 1-2 sentence "watch list" — what would make Atlas re-rate
- Disclaimer — Atlas is research, not financial advice; CC executes manually
Atlas-Specific Anchoring
The Conservative prompt is anchored to CC's runway floor ($10K CAD when he moves to Montreal). A 30% drawdown on a 5K non-registered position is treated as a real impact to runway, not abstract risk.
The Neutral prompt is anchored to CC's account inventory: TFSA growth, RRSP US-dividend treaty, FHSA first-home equities, non-registered for short-term.
Cost Note
3 personas × N rounds × quick_think + 1 × deep_think synthesis. With max_rounds=1 and the default tier mapping (Haiku quick / Opus deep), a single risk debate costs roughly 4× a single LLM call.
Internal References
- [[risk_aggressive]] — aggressive persona prompt
- [[risk_conservative]] — conservative persona prompt with CC's runway anchor
- [[risk_neutral]] — neutral persona prompt with account-placement anchor
- [[portfolio_manager]] — synthesis prompt with 5-tier rating
- [[debate]] — Python orchestrator
- [[risk-aggressive]] — agent file
- [[risk-conservative]] — agent file
- [[risk-neutral]] — agent file
