# Build Thesis > Build a two-sided, falsifiable thesis on a specific name — the left side (does the number stand up, and where do you differ from consensus) and the right side (is the market itself favoring this — sector, capital, macro, trend). Use when the user has a ticker but no conviction yet: "is the NVDA thesis real", "build a thesis on X", "should I believe the X story", "bull and bear case for Y", "stress-test my view on Z", "is X already priced in", "left side or right side on X", "everyone's buying Y, should I". This is the have-a-name / no-conviction step — it picks up where a value-chain scan hands off ("the next question: is the thesis real?") and turns a name into a thesis you can act on and later monitor. - Skill: `traderalice/build-thesis` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add traderalice/build-thesis` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/traderalice/build-thesis/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: TraderAlice (https://skillmd.com/u/traderalice) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/traderalice/build-thesis --- # Build a two-sided thesis on a name Turn "everyone's talking about NVDA — should I believe it?" into a thesis with a spine: what has to be true, where you differ from the crowd, and what would prove you wrong. Judge the name from BOTH sides. Most real money is medium- or short-term and can't wait for value to revert — so the **right side** (is the market actually favoring this?) is usually what drives realized P&L. Don't stop at "it's cheap." ## Procedure (don't answer from memory — run the tools) The tools: `traderhub equity` for valuation / estimates / consensus, `alice analysis quant` for relative strength, momentum, and z-score vs history, `traderhub board` for the sector/macro frame. Choose news sources to suit the question. (See the `traderhub`, `alice-analysis`, `alice` skills.) 0. **Anchor the comparison set.** The right side is *relative* — "strong" only means something against peers. If a value-chain map for this name's theme exists in the dossier (from `scan-value-chain`), use it as the peer/chain set. If not, sketch the chain first: without it you don't know what to compare against. 1. **State the claim** in one sentence — what has to happen for this to work. 2. **LEFT side — does the number stand up, and where do you differ from consensus?** - Your own quant: valuation against its own history and against chain peers; the 2–3 assumptions the value actually rests on. - Others' quant: where consensus / estimates sit — and the part that matters, your **variant view**: where you disagree with the street, and why. No variant view, no edge. - *What must be true (left):* the load-bearing valuation assumptions. - *Disconfirming signals (left):* what would break the fundamental case. 3. **RIGHT side — is the market itself favoring this?** (cross-sectional, on the chain from step 0) - Relative strength: this name vs its layer peers vs the chain vs the market — leader or laggard? (a laggard is either a left-side setup or a falling knife — say which.) - Where capital is rotating: into this node/name, or out of it. Flow data is thin — read it through price/volume momentum, market breadth (what's leading vs lagging), and the news narrative. - Sector + macro tailwind: is the whole chain on the right side of macro, or is this name swimming against it? - *What must be true (right):* the trend / flow / sector strength that must persist. - *Disconfirming signals (right):* momentum break, capital rotating out, the chain rolling over. (These are exactly the hooks a position monitor watches.) 4. **Consensus & priced-in.** Is this already the consensus trade? Has the easy money gone? A correct left+right thesis that everyone already holds is a crowded trade, not an edge — and the variant view is where any edge survives. 5. **Verdict.** Combine the sides → is the thesis real, and is the opportunity a **left-side entry** (early, cheap, market not yet confirming) or a **right-side entry** (market confirming, pay up for lower timing risk) — or neither. Often the chain map points you off the crowded leader toward a less-crowded name carrying the marginal strength. ## Output — write it into the dossier Persist the thesis as `/notes/.md` in the dossier the value-chain scan started (confirm the layout with the user if none exists — don't impose one). The per-name note is the living thesis: the claim, both sides, what-must- be-true, and the disconfirming-signal watchlist. Next session reads it and updates it as the signals move — never re-derives from zero. The right-side disconfirming signals are the baton to a position-monitor step. To act on the verdict — size and place the trade through the approval flow — that's the `alice-uta` skill. ## Worked example: NVDA (illustrative — run it fresh for any name) **Claim:** NVDA keeps compounding data-center revenue because hyperscaler capex hasn't peaked and it stays the market's chosen way to own AI silicon. **Left:** rich vs its own history and vs the chain on most multiples — not a value bargain. Consensus already models years of data-center growth; the only variant views with edge are narrow ("does CoWoS/HBM supply cap the growth the street is modeling?" / "does custom silicon — TPU, Trainium — quietly take share?"). *Must be true:* capex doesn't peak, ~dominant accelerator share holds, margins hold. *Breaks if:* a data-center guide-down, margin compression, visible custom-silicon share loss. **Right:** the leader of the AI-silicon chain, riding a whole-chain tailwind — strong on relative-strength. But anchored on the chain map, the *marginal* strength has migrated downstream of the headline name, to the HBM + advanced- packaging bottleneck (MU / SK Hynix / Amkor). *Must be true:* the AI-capex narrative persists and NVDA stays the chosen leader. *Breaks if:* momentum rolls over, a "capex peak" narrative takes hold, money rotates from NVDA to the laggards or out of the chain. **Priced-in:** NVDA is *the* consensus AI trade — extremely crowded. Left+right can both hold and the edge still be thin. **Verdict:** left = fair-to-rich (no left-side bargain), right = leader but crowded. The chain map's tell is that the cleaner right-side trade with less crowding may be the bottleneck names, not NVDA itself — which is the kind of call this two-sided + chain-anchored read surfaces and a single-name glance misses.