Us Market Bubble Detector
Score US equity bubble risk with a quantitative phase model and tightly capped qualitative adjustments for portfolio risk budgeting.
Overview
US Market Bubble Detector is an agent skill for the Operate phase that scores US market bubble risk using quantitative phases plus v2.1 qualitative rules capped at +3 with strict data requirements.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/tradermonty/claude-trading-skills --skill us-market-bubble-detectorWhat is this skill?
- v2.1 fixes over-inflation from subjective narrative adjustments (example: 9→11 points from unmeasured +2)
- Qualitative cap: MAX +3 points (down from +5 in v2.0)
- Social penetration tier requires three independent sourced examples, not general awareness
- Media tier requires Google Trends 5x+ YoY plus dated mainstream coverage
- Valuation disconnect tier ties P/E thresholds to fundamental backing to avoid double counting
- v2.1 qualitative adjustment maximum +3 points (reduced from +5)
- Social penetration qualitative tier needs minimum 3 independent sources
- Media/search tier requires Google Trends 5x+ year-over-year
Adoption & trust: 588 installs on skills.sh; 1.8k GitHub stars; 2/3 security scanners passed (skills.sh audits).
What problem does it solve?
You want a disciplined bubble-risk read but subjective narrative tweaks keep confirming the bias you already had.
Who is it for?
Independent traders documenting macro risk and risk-budget decisions with explicit scoring rules.
Skip if: Beginners seeking buy/sell picks without sourcing Google Trends, P/E context, and independent social-penetration evidence.
When should I use this skill?
You are sizing US equity risk and need the v2.1 scoring rules so qualitative narrative cannot inflate bubble phase without measured evidence.
What do I get? / Deliverables
You get a phase-aligned risk score driven by measurable criteria so qualitative adjustments cannot casually jump you into euphoria without evidence.
- Quantitative phase score with capped qualitative overlay
- Documented rationale per social, media, and valuation criteria
- Risk-budget implication aligned to scored bubble phase
Recommended Skills
Journey fit
Operate/iterate fits ongoing market monitoring and adjusting defensive posture as conditions change. Iterate is where traders revisit risk budgets and strategy after new macro and valuation data.
How it compares
Structured bubble checklist for agents, not a live market data MCP or brokerage integration.
Common Questions / FAQ
Who is us-market-bubble-detector for?
Solo builders and indie investors who actively manage US equity exposure and want repeatable bubble-phase scoring instead of ad-hoc media panic.
When should I use us-market-bubble-detector?
During operate when updating risk budgets after macro prints, earnings seasons, or viral AI narratives that might affect positioning.
Is us-market-bubble-detector safe to install?
It guides research scoring only; verify any live data yourself and review the Security Audits panel on this page before installing.
SKILL.md
READMESKILL.md - Us Market Bubble Detector
# US Market Bubble Detector - Changelog ## Version 2.1 (November 3, 2025) ### Critical Issue Fixed **Problem Identified:** v2.0 allowed excessive qualitative adjustments based on unmeasured "narratives" and subjective impressions, leading to inflated bubble risk scores. **Example Case (Nov 3, 2025):** - Quantitative Score (Phase 2): 9 points (objective, data-driven) - Qualitative Adjustment (v2.0): +2 points - Media Narrative: +1 (based on "elevated AI narrative" - NO DATA) - Valuation: +1 (P/E 30.8 - DOUBLE COUNTED, ignored fundamental backing) - **Result**: 11/16 points → Euphoria phase → 40% risk budget (overly defensive) **Root Cause:** Confirmation bias - analyst had bearish conclusion first, then adjusted qualitative points to match expectation. ### Changes in v2.1 #### 1. Stricter Qualitative Criteria (MAX +3, down from +5) **A. Social Penetration (0-1 points)** - **v2.0**: Loose criteria, "general awareness" acceptable - **v2.1**: ALL three required: - Direct user report of non-investor recommendations - Specific examples with dates/names - Multiple independent sources (minimum 3) **B. Media/Search Trends (0-1 points)** - **v2.0**: Subjective "many reports" acceptable - **v2.1**: BOTH required: - Google Trends 5x+ YoY (measured data) - Mainstream coverage confirmed (Time covers, TV specials with dates) - **Critical**: "Elevated narrative" without data = 0 points **C. Valuation Disconnect (0-1 points)** - **v2.0**: P/E >25 alone sufficient - **v2.1**: ALL required AND avoid double-counting: - P/E >25 (if NOT in Phase 2) - Fundamentals explicitly ignored in discourse - "This time is different" documented in major media - **Self-check**: If companies have real earnings supporting valuations → 0 points #### 2. Confirmation Bias Prevention New mandatory checklist before adding ANY qualitative points: ``` □ Do I have concrete, measurable data? (not impressions) □ Would an independent observer reach the same conclusion? □ Am I avoiding double-counting with Phase 2 scores? □ Have I documented specific evidence with sources? ``` #### 3. Granular Risk Phases **New "Elevated Risk" Phase (8-9 points)** - **v2.0**: 9 points = Euphoria = 40% risk budget (extreme defensive) - **v2.1**: 9 points = Elevated Risk = 50-70% risk budget (balanced caution) **Updated Risk Budget Matrix:** | Score | Phase | v2.0 Risk Budget | v2.1 Risk Budget | Change | |-------|-------|------------------|------------------|--------| | 0-4 | Normal | 100% | 100% | - | | 5-7 | Caution | 70% | 70-80% | More flexible | | 8-9 | Elevated Risk | 40% (Euphoria) | 50-70% | **NEW PHASE** | | 10-12 | Euphoria | 40% | 40-50% | More balanced | | 13-15 | Critical | 20% | 20-30% | Reduced max | #### 4. Maximum Score Reduction - **v2.0**: 0-16 points (Phase 2: 12, Phase 3: -1 to +5) - **v2.1**: 0-15 points (Phase 2: 12, Phase 3: 0 to +3) ### Impact on Nov 3, 2025 Analysis **Under v2.0:** - Score: 11/16 → Euphoria phase - Risk Budget: 40% - Positioning: Extreme defensive **Under v2.1 (corrected):** - Quantitative: 9/12 (unchanged, data-driven) - Qualitative: - Media Narrative: 0 points (no Google Trends data) - Valuation: 0 points (AI has fundamental backing, double-counting) - **Score: 9/15 → Elevated Risk phase** - **Risk Budget: 50-70%** - **Positioning: Cautious but not extreme** ### Key Learnings 1. **Data > Impressions**: "Elevated narrative" is not measurable evidence 2. **Avoid Double-Counting**: Valuation in Phase 2 quantitative ≠ add again in Phase 3 3. **Check Internal Consistency**: If report admits "AI has fundamental backing," then valuation disconnect score must be 0 4. **Independent Verification**: All qualitative points must be verifiable by independent observers ### Documentation Updates - `SKILL.md`: Updated to v2.1 with strict criteria - `references/implementation_guide.md`: Enhanced Phase 3 with bias prevention checklist - `references/quick_reference.md`: Updated action matrix with new Elevated Risk phase -