Real Conservatism

Name: Real Conservatism
Author: kangarooking

kangarooking/buffett-letters-skill

44 installs
65 repo stars
Updated April 17, 2026
kangarooking/buffett-letters-skill

Identify true financial conservatism: actionable risk management, not accounting tricks.

About

Real conservatism is proactive (build reserves, stay unleveraged) not cosmetic (aggressive reserves while taking real risks). Buffett values action over appearance.

Proactive conservatism
Risk-aware accounting

Real Conservatism by the numbers

44 all-time installs (skills.sh)
+1 installs in the week ending Aug 2, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
Ranked #614 of 1,106 Finance & Trading skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
Data as of Aug 5, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)

npx skills add https://github.com/kangarooking/buffett-letters-skill --skill real-conservatism

Add your badge

Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.

[![Listed on Skillselion](https://skillselion.com/badge/skills/kangarooking/buffett-letters-skill/real-conservatism.svg)](https://skillselion.com/skills/kangarooking/buffett-letters-skill/real-conservatism)

Installs	44
repo stars	★ 65
Last updated	April 17, 2026
Repository	kangarooking/buffett-letters-skill ↗

What it does

Identify true financial conservatism: actionable risk management, not accounting tricks.

Files

SKILL.mdMarkdownGitHub ↗

保守≠传统 / 独立思考

R — 原文 (Reading)

"You will not be right simply because a large number of people momentarily agree with you. You will not be right simply because important people agree with you." (1961)

"Neither a conventional nor an unconventional approach, per se, is conservative." (1965)

I — 方法论骨架

真正的保守 = 知识 + 理性，而非从众：

常规做法不等于保守做法
非常规做法也不等于不保守
正确的标准：你的假设对不对？事实对不对？推理对不对？
"公开意见调查不能替代思考"——多数人同意不增加正确性
CEO误导公众最终会误导自己——诚实是保守的基础

A1 — 书中的应用

案例: 十年赌局

使用: 巴菲特和Protégé在十年中只做了一次投资决定——什么都不做
结果: 标普500回报125.8% vs 五只基金2.0%-8.7%——"什么都不做"赢了

A2 — 触发场景

1. 多数人推荐某个投资但你不确定 2. 你的分析与市场共识相反 3. 有人用"行业惯例"来说服你 4. 你在做"与众不同"的事并感到不安

语言信号

"大家都说..."
"分析师都推荐"
"为什么不跟着做？"
"保守一点不是更安全吗？"

E — 可执行步骤

1. 分离"多数人"和"证据"

完成标准：列出支持你判断的证据（独立于"谁也这么说"）

2. 检验你的假设/事实/推理

完成标准：每一步都经受住"如果错了会怎样"的检验

3. 接受孤独的正确

完成标准：如果独立分析结论与群体相反，你是否愿意坚持？

B — 边界

独立≠固执——如果你的分析被证伪，应该改变
有时多数人确实是对的——不能因为"大家都做"就自动反着来
作者盲点：巴菲特有足够的资本和声誉承受"孤独"——普通投资者承受压力的能力不同

---

审计信息

验证通过: V1 ✓ / V2 ✓ / V3 ✓
蒸馏时间: 2026-04-16

{
  "skill": "real-conservatism",
  "version": "0.1.0",
  "source_book": "《巴菲特致股东的信》 — 沃伦·巴菲特",
  "darwin_compatible": true,
  "test_cases": [
    {
      "id": "should-trigger-01",
      "type": "should_trigger",
      "prompt": "分析师一致推荐这只股票，是不是比较安全",
      "expected_behavior": "应激活 real-conservatism，指出多数人同意不增加正确性，'公开意见调查不能替代思考'",
      "notes": "从众=安全的误区"
    },
    {
      "id": "should-trigger-02",
      "type": "should_trigger",
      "prompt": "大家都说应该分散投资，集中投资不就风险很大吗",
      "expected_behavior": "应激活 real-conservatism，区分从众安全和真正保守——保守取决于分析质量",
      "notes": "行业惯例≠保守"
    },
    {
      "id": "should-trigger-03",
      "type": "should_trigger",
      "prompt": "行业惯例是这样的，为什么不跟着做",
      "expected_behavior": "应激活 real-conservatism，质疑'行业惯例'是否经过独立验证",
      "notes": "用行业惯例作为论据"
    },
    {
      "id": "should-not-trigger-01",
      "type": "should_not_trigger",
      "prompt": "我已经独立分析了这家公司，结论是买入",
      "expected_behavior": "不应激活本skill，用户已有独立分析支撑",
      "notes": "诱饵：已有独立分析时不需要纠偏"
    },
    {
      "id": "should-not-trigger-02",
      "type": "should_not_trigger",
      "prompt": "帮我分析财务报表",
      "expected_behavior": "不应激活本skill，这是纯分析请求",
      "notes": "诱饵：分析请求≠从众问题"
    },
    {
      "id": "edge-01",
      "type": "edge_case",
      "prompt": "多数人说要卖，我的分析也说基本面恶化了",
      "expected_behavior": "应指出多数人这次恰好是对的——不能为反而反，关键是你的分析是否独立",
      "notes": "边界：多数人有时确实是对的"
    }
  ],
  "minimum_pass_rate": 0.8
}