@v587d/capital-generation 2.7.0 → 2.7.2

package/selected-skills/InvestSkill/plugins/us-stock-analysis/skills/industry-map/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,336 @@
+---
+name: industry-map
+description: Map an industry's supply / value chain as a directed graph — upstream to downstream — to locate a company's position, find chokepoints and margin pools, and surface second-order investment ideas
+---
+
+# Industry Map — Supply & Value Chain
+
+## ⚠️ Data Verification — Do This Before Any Analysis
+
+Before running any analysis, always retrieve the latest market data for the ticker:
+
+1. **Fetch current price** — get the live price, 52-week range, and market cap through the host's own data path. In a host that splits roles, delegate the request with an exact brief (ticker, fields, as-of date) rather than searching from this step. Never assume a price from training data.
+2. **Confirm key figures** — recent earnings, revenue, key ratios (P/E, P/S, etc.) as applicable to this skill.
+3. **State your data source** — fill in the `Data & Sources` header (next section) so the origin, as-of date, retrieval path, and confidence of every figure are explicit at the top of the output.
+4. **Stop on missing data** — if a figure cannot be retrieved through the host's data path, name what is missing and stop; the analysis does not run on remembered values:
+
+> ⚠️ **Data unavailable.** <list the figures this analysis could not retrieve>. Those fields are reported as missing and are not estimated — retrieval is a precondition, not a nicety.
+
+Never substitute a remembered value for a retrieved one. Getting the number is the host data path's job — delegate it; asking the user to paste is the last resort only where the host has no retrieval path at all.
+
+---
+
+## 📋 Data & Sources Header — Open Every Output With It
+
+The first thing in the output is this provenance block, filled in — never left as placeholders. It is the standard documented on the [Data & Accuracy](https://yennanliu.github.io/InvestSkill/data-and-accuracy.html) page and the first thing `result-validator` looks for:
+
+```
+Data & Sources
+  As of:      <date the figures represent, e.g. 2026-06-30>
+  Source:     <primary docs — SEC EDGAR 10-K/10-Q, company IR, FRED, exchange data …>
+  Retrieval:  <delegated retrieval | web/tool retrieval | pasted by user>
+  Confidence: <HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW>
+```
+
+- Memory is not a retrieval path. A figure that was neither retrieved nor supplied by the user is reported as missing, never estimated — and never written into this block as if it had been retrieved.
+- Mixed sources: list each with its own as-of date rather than blending them.
+- Data the user pasted is reported as `pasted by user`; do not upgrade its confidence beyond what the user's own source supports.
+
+---
+
+Draw an industry's supply and value chain as a directed graph — from raw inputs upstream all the way down to the end user — so you can take a **bird's-eye view of a business**, see where a company sits in the flow, understand where value and pricing power concentrate today, and reason about where they will migrate next.
+
+## Overview
+
+Most analysis looks at one company in isolation. This skill zooms out and answers a different question: **"How does this whole industry actually work, layer by layer, and who captures the profit at each stage?"**
+
+A value chain is a **directed graph**: nodes are the layers of production (raw materials → components → integrators → platforms → distribution → end users), and edges point in the direction goods and services flow — from supplier to customer. Once the chain is drawn, three things become visible that a single-company view hides:
+
+1. **Position** — is the target company upstream (inputs), midstream (integration/manufacturing), or downstream (distribution / end demand)? Position determines cyclicality, margin profile, and who has pricing power over whom.
+2. **Chokepoints** — the layer(s) with the fewest credible suppliers capture disproportionate value. Following the chain reveals bottleneck monopolies (e.g. EUV lithography, leading-edge foundry) that are the real toll-collectors of a theme.
+3. **Value migration** — the profit pool is not fixed. It shifts down (or up) the chain over time as scarcity moves. Mapping the chain lets you form a thesis about *where the money goes next* — the "picks-and-shovels" and second-order plays.
+
+This complements — and does not duplicate — the existing skills. `competitor-analysis` studies one company's moat *horizontally* against its direct peers; `sector-analysis` ranks the 11 GICS sectors for rotation. This skill maps a theme or product *vertically*, cutting **across** sectors, to show the whole flow. Output feeds naturally into `competitor-analysis` (pick a node, study its moat), `stock-screener` (rank the tickers at one layer), and `chart-master` / `report-generator` (render the graph).
+
+---
+
+## 1. The Value Chain Model
+
+Every physical or digital product can be decomposed into ordered layers. Use this generic template and adapt the layer names to the specific industry:
+
+```
+UPSTREAM ───────────────► MIDSTREAM ───────────────► DOWNSTREAM
+(scarce inputs,           (integration, manufacture,   (distribution, demand,
+ tools, IP)                assembly, platforms)          the end customer)
+
+Raw materials / inputs
+   → Enabling tools & equipment
+      → Components / sub-systems
+         → Integrators / OEMs
+            → Platforms / aggregators
+               → Channel / distribution
+                  → End users / demand
+```
+
+**Node attributes** — for each layer, capture:
+- **Layer name** and what it does in one line
+- **Representative public tickers** (2–5) and any dominant private players
+- **Position tag**: `Upstream` / `Midstream` / `Downstream`
+- **Concentration**: how many credible suppliers exist (monopoly / oligopoly / fragmented)
+- **Value capture today**: does this layer earn high or thin margins right now?
+
+**Edge attributes** — for each arrow (supplier → customer):
+- Direction of flow (always supplier → the layer that buys from it)
+- Dependency strength (sole-source / multi-source / commodity)
+- Whether the buyer can integrate backward, or the supplier forward
+
+---
+
+## 2. Step 1 — Define the Scope
+
+Clarify what is being mapped. The input is usually one of three things:
+
+| Input type | Example | What to map |
+|---|---|---|
+| **A theme / product** | "AI compute", "electric vehicles", "GLP-1 drugs" | The full chain end-to-end |
+| **A single ticker** | `NVDA` | The chain around it, then locate it |
+| **A layer** | "memory", "foundry" | That layer + its immediate up/downstream neighbors |
+
+Confirm the boundaries: where does the chain start (how far upstream — mined ore? refined wafer?) and where does it end (the paying end user)? State the scope explicitly at the top of the output so the graph is bounded and legible.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Step 2 — Build the Chain Map (the graph)
+
+Produce the directed graph. **Default to a Mermaid `flowchart`** (renders in Claude, Cursor, Gemini, GitHub, and the site); fall back to ASCII when Mermaid is unavailable. Hand off to `chart-master` for a richer HTML render or for a `report-generator` export.
+
+**Mermaid flowchart (primary output):**
+
+```mermaid
+flowchart LR
+    MAT["Materials & Substrates<br/>(silicon, rare earths)"] --> EQ["Fab Equipment<br/>ASML · LRCX · AMAT"]
+    EQ --> FAB["Foundry / Fab<br/>TSMC · INTC · Samsung"]
+    FAB --> MEM["Memory<br/>MU · Hynix · Samsung"]
+    FAB --> GPU["GPU / Accelerators<br/>NVDA · AMD"]
+    MEM --> GPU
+    GPU --> NET["Networking / Interconnect<br/>AVGO · ANET"]
+    NET --> CSP["Cloud / CSP<br/>AMZN · MSFT · GOOGL"]
+    CSP --> LAB["Model Labs<br/>OpenAI · Anthropic"]
+    LAB --> APP["AI Software / Apps"]
+    APP --> USER["End Users<br/>enterprise · consumer"]
+```
+
+**ASCII fallback:**
+
+```
+Materials ─► Fab Equipment ─► Foundry ─┬─► Memory ──┐
+             (ASML,LRCX,AMAT) (TSMC,INTC)   │            ▼
+                                       └─► GPU/Accel (NVDA,AMD) ─► Networking (AVGO,ANET)
+                                                                        │
+   End Users ◄─ AI Software ◄─ Model Labs ◄─ Cloud/CSP (AMZN,MSFT) ◄────┘
+   (enterprise,             (OpenAI,        (GOOGL)
+    consumer)                Anthropic)
+```
+
+**Chain map table** — accompany the graph with a table so the data is machine-readable and feeds the later steps:
+
+```
+Layer                 Position    Key Tickers          Concentration     Value Capture (now)
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Materials/Substrates  Upstream    SHECY, SUMCF         Fragmented        Low
+Fab Equipment         Upstream    ASML, LRCX, AMAT     Oligopoly/Monopoly High  ◄ chokepoint
+Foundry               Midstream   TSMC, INTC           Oligopoly         High
+Memory                Midstream   MU, Hynix, Samsung   Oligopoly         Cyclical
+GPU / Accelerators    Midstream   NVDA, AMD            Near-monopoly     Very High ◄ chokepoint
+Networking            Midstream   AVGO, ANET           Oligopoly         High
+Cloud / CSP           Downstream  AMZN, MSFT, GOOGL    Oligopoly         Medium (capex heavy)
+Model Labs            Downstream  OpenAI, Anthropic    Fragmenting       Negative→? 
+AI Software / Apps    Downstream  many                 Fragmented        Emerging
+End Users             Demand      —                    —                 —
+```
+
+---
+
+## 4. Step 3 — Position Locator
+
+If the user supplied a ticker, pin it precisely:
+
+- **Which node** does it occupy? (a company may span several — e.g. Amazon is both CSP and end-market retailer)
+- **Its upstream dependencies**: who must it buy from, and how substitutable are they? (single-source dependency = risk)
+- **Its downstream customers**: who buys from it, how concentrated are they, and can they build it in-house or switch?
+- **Direction of pricing power**: does value flow *toward* this node (it can raise prices) or *away* (it is squeezed between a strong supplier and a strong buyer)?
+
+State the one-line takeaway: *"[Ticker] sits [upstream/mid/down] at the [layer] node; it depends on [supplier layer] and sells into [customer layer]; pricing power currently favors [node]."*
+
+---
+
+## 5. Step 4 — Chokepoint & Bottleneck Analysis
+
+This is where the alpha usually is. Walk the chain and score each layer for **bottleneck power** — the ability to hold up the entire chain:
+
+```
+Bottleneck Score (per layer, 0–10) = average of these four factors, each scored 0–10:
+- Supplier scarcity      (fewer credible suppliers = higher)
+- Substitutability       (no viable alternative = higher)
+- Switching cost / lead  (longer to qualify a new supplier = higher)
+- Demand inelasticity    (chain cannot proceed without it = higher)
+```
+
+Layers scoring high are **toll collectors**: they capture value regardless of who wins downstream. Classic examples to reason by analogy from: ASML (sole EUV supplier), TSMC (leading-edge foundry), NVDA + CUDA (accelerator + software lock-in). Explicitly flag:
+- **Where the bottleneck is today**
+- **Whether it is durable** or being competed / engineered away (second sources, in-housing, new architectures)
+- **The "arms dealer" thesis**: a bottleneck layer often wins no matter which downstream competitor prevails
+
+---
+
+## 6. Step 5 — Value-Pool & Margin Migration
+
+The profit pool is dynamic. Map where margin sits **now** and build a thesis for where it goes **next**:
+
+- **Current margin map**: which layer earns the fat gross/operating margins, and which is a thin-margin commodity pass-through?
+- **Scarcity shift**: today's bottleneck gets competed away or over-built; a new one forms elsewhere. (e.g. compute scarcity today → energy/power and data scarcity next; hardware margins → software/services over time.)
+- **Value migration direction**: is value moving **downstream** (toward platforms and apps as hardware commoditizes) or **upstream** (toward whoever controls the newly scarce input)?
+- **What to expect in the future**: name the layer likely to capture incremental value over the next 1–3 years and the *trigger* that would confirm it (capacity coming online, a standard emerging, an input going scarce).
+
+This is the section that turns a static picture into a forward-looking investment view.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Step 6 — Concentration & Supply-Chain Risk
+
+A chain view exposes fragility that a single-stock view misses:
+
+- **Single-source / single-region chokepoints** (e.g. Taiwan foundry concentration, rare-earth processing in one country)
+- **Geopolitical exposure**: export controls, tariffs, sanctions that could sever an edge in the graph
+- **Cascade risk**: if one upstream node fails, how far downstream does the disruption propagate?
+- **Inventory / bullwhip dynamics**: demand signals amplifying up the chain (over-ordering, then a glut) — especially in memory and components
+- **Customer concentration at each node**: a layer selling >30% to one downstream buyer inherits that buyer's fate
+
+---
+
+## 8. Step 7 — Investment Idea Generation
+
+Turn the map into a ranked idea list, organized by layer:
+
+```
+Layer            Best-positioned names   Rationale                         Idea type
+────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Bottleneck       [tickers]               Durable toll on the whole theme   Core / "arms dealer"
+Direct winner    [tickers]               Obvious primary beneficiary        Consensus long
+2nd-order        [tickers]               Sells picks-and-shovels to winners Under-covered
+Squeezed         [tickers]               Caught between strong up/down      Avoid / short candidate
+Optionality      [tickers]               Cheap exposure if value migrates   Speculative
+```
+
+Flag the **non-obvious** node — the second-order supplier the market under-covers because it isn't a pure-play on the theme. Hand the shortlist to `stock-screener` to rank, or `competitor-analysis` to check each name's moat, or `bear-case` to stress-test the consensus winner.
+
+---
+
+## 9. Worked Example — AI Compute Stack
+
+Reading the map above:
+- **Chokepoints**: Fab Equipment (ASML EUV monopoly) and GPU/Accelerators (NVDA + CUDA). These are the durable toll collectors today.
+- **Value pool now**: concentrated at the GPU and foundry layers; CSPs are absorbing heavy capex; model labs are largely unprofitable.
+- **Migration thesis**: as accelerator supply catches up, incremental scarcity shifts toward **power/energy and networking**, and value accrues to **software/inference** that monetizes the installed base. Watch for the trigger: accelerator lead times normalizing.
+- **Idea shape**: core = the bottleneck arms dealers; 2nd-order = power, cooling, interconnect, and HBM memory suppliers the market under-weights; avoid = undifferentiated app-layer names with no data moat.
+
+---
+
+## 10. Input Formats
+
+```
+# Map a full theme end-to-end
+/industry-map "AI compute"
+
+# Map the chain around a ticker, then locate it
+/industry-map NVDA
+
+# Focus on one layer + its neighbors
+/industry-map semiconductors --layer memory
+
+# Emphasize where value migrates next
+/industry-map "electric vehicles" --focus value-migration
+
+# Emit chart-ready graph spec for a report
+/industry-map "GLP-1 drugs" --visual
+```
+
+---
+
+## 11. Visualization Support
+
+When `--visual` is used, provide graph specs ready for `chart-master` / `report-generator`:
+
+### Chain Graph
+**Chart type**: Directed graph (Mermaid `flowchart LR` primary, ASCII fallback, graphviz/HTML for rich export). Nodes = layers with representative tickers; edges = supplier→customer flow.
+
+### Value-Capture-by-Layer Bar
+**Chart type**: Horizontal bar — estimated gross/operating margin (or a 0–10 value-capture score) per layer, to show where the profit pool sits.
+
+```
+Layer               Value-capture score (0–10)
+Fab Equipment       [value]
+Foundry             [value]
+GPU / Accelerators  [value]
+Cloud / CSP         [value]
+Model Labs          [value]
+```
+
+### Bottleneck Heat Row
+**Chart type**: Scorecard / heat row — bottleneck score per layer, highlighting the chokepoints.
+
+---
+
+## Output
+
+Provide an industry-map report with:
+- Executive Summary (scope, where value sits today, migration thesis — 3 sentences)
+- The Chain Map (directed graph + chain-map table)
+- Position Locator (if a ticker was given)
+- Chokepoint & Bottleneck Analysis (scored, with the durable toll-collectors named)
+- Value-Pool & Margin Migration (now → next, with the confirming trigger)
+- Concentration & Supply-Chain Risk
+- Investment Ideas by layer (core / 2nd-order / avoid)
+- Investment Implications and how this feeds `competitor-analysis` / `stock-screener` / `bear-case`
+
+## Standard Signal Output
+
+All analysis concludes with this standardized block:
+
+```
+## Thesis Invalidation
+
+After delivering the analysis signal, specify what would reverse it:
+
+**If signal is BULLISH — thesis breaks if:**
+- the mapped chokepoint is broken (credible second source qualifies, or a customer in-sources) OR value migrates away from the node you favored
+- [One or two more triggers drawn from this analysis's own drivers, each with a threshold]
+
+**If signal is BEARISH — thesis breaks if:**
+- the node re-establishes a durable bottleneck OR a new scarce input forms in its favor
+- [One or two more triggers drawn from this analysis's own drivers, each with a threshold]
+
+**Re-run this analysis when:**
+- [ ] Next earnings release
+- [ ] Price moves ±15% from current level
+- [ ] 60 days have elapsed
+- [ ] Material news event (acquisition, leadership change, regulatory decision)
+
+╔══════════════════════════════════════════════╗
+║              INVESTMENT SIGNAL               ║
+╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
+║ Signal:      BULLISH / NEUTRAL / BEARISH     ║
+║ Confidence:  HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW             ║
+║ Horizon:     SHORT / MEDIUM / LONG-TERM      ║
+║ Score:       X.X / 10                        ║
+╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
+║ Action:      BUY / HOLD / SELL               ║
+║ Conviction:  STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK        ║
+╚══════════════════════════════════════════════╝
+```
+
+Score Guide: 8.0–10.0 Strongly Bullish | 6.0–7.9 Moderately Bullish | 4.0–5.9 Neutral | 2.0–3.9 Moderately Bearish | 0.0–1.9 Strongly Bearish
+Confidence: HIGH (strong data, clear signals) | MEDIUM (mixed signals) | LOW (limited data, conflicting signals)
+Horizon: SHORT-TERM (1 week–3 months) | MEDIUM-TERM (3 months–1 year) | LONG-TERM (1+ years)
+
+**Disclaimer:** Educational analysis only. Not financial advice.