A working notebook
Connect price action, macro and market views.
Track macro shifts, changing creator views and market sentiment. Test your thesis, then take measurable ideas into Signal Studio.
How to use these prompts
Choose a research assignment, add your stocks and creators, then copy it to an assistant connected to Ducky. Supplement charts or options data with material you provide or other connected sources. Each result should state its data dates and actual coverage.
Ongoing checks need scheduling in a compatible AI client. Notifications start only after a task or supported Ducky monitor is actually confirmed.
Inputs stay in this page. Nothing is sent or saved; only you choose where to paste the copied prompt.
No matching prompts. Try a shorter search or another category.
Ongoing researchFollow my creators, stocks and macro signalsA focused briefing on material news, price moves and changing views.
Creators: {{followed}}. Stocks: {{tickers}}.
Use Ducky to build my market and thesis watch. Resolve creator and company identities first; ask me to confirm any missing or ambiguous names. Establish a 30-day baseline, then compare each review with the last available record.
Look for macro shifts relevant to these companies, new disclosures, genuine changes in a creator’s stance or core reasoning, and price or volume reactions over the same period. Combine available charts, technical indicators and options evidence, naming each source and date. Keep attention separate from explicit bullish or bearish views.
Select at most five changes that deserve a fresh decision. For each, give: what changed → why it matters to my watchlist → supporting and contrary evidence → what to watch next. Include original links. When data permits, align price action and events on a dated chart; identify whether price or commentary moved first, without treating correlation as causation.
Deduplicate repeated reporting and reaffirmed opinions. Retain revisions, withdrawals and coverage gaps. Keep the update brief if nothing material changed.
I want future summaries only for material changes. Complete this review first, then distinguish supported Ducky condition monitors from checks that need scheduling in my AI client. Confirm cadence and materiality with me. Claim ongoing tracking only after a supported task is actually established; otherwise give me a repeatable review plan.
Views & sentimentWho changed their mind—and why?Compare the old view, new reasoning and price response to find meaningful reversals.
Trace {{creator}}’s evolving view of {{ticker}}, starting with the available records from the last 90 days.
For each meaningful change, show: previous view and date → new view and date → what changed the reasoning → original sources. Distinguish a bull-to-bear reversal, revised reasoning, a conditional view and a simple reaffirmation. Keep short-term caution separate from a long-term bullish thesis, and attribute guests separately from publishers.
Place the changes alongside available price charts, company disclosures and macro events. What happened around the change, and had the price already moved? Include counterevidence and whether other independent creators agree. Repeated use of one source is not new corroboration.
Finish with at most three changes worth revisiting and the evidence that would strengthen or invalidate each. State missing periods. Separate self-reported trades, opinions and verified holdings.
If I ask for future alerts, verify the available scheduling and delivery mechanism first. Until a task is actually established, keep this comparison as a review baseline rather than claiming background monitoring.
Thesis researchWhich assumptions changed with the macro backdrop?Translate rates, inflation and liquidity changes into company-specific questions.
Focus on {{tickers}}. My research question is: {{question}}.
Use Ducky’s available macro-regime records, market briefs, events and company evidence to compare recent developments with the previous available baseline. Separate released facts, market expectations and creator interpretations. Do not call a release a surprise if consensus data is missing.
Explain the transmission to each company—financing costs, demand, margins, valuation or currency exposure—only where evidence supports the link. Build a table: change → mechanism → affected stocks → support and counterevidence → next event to verify.
Compare that interpretation with available price action, benchmark-relative returns, volume and options-volatility evidence. Plot relative performance over a consistent window when complete series are available. Label inferences and leave unavailable metrics blank.
Finish with base, improving and deteriorating scenarios, each tied to observable evidence rather than invented probabilities. Identify the two assumptions most worth revisiting; avoid repeating the same macro paragraph for every stock.
Views & sentimentWhere do sentiment and price disagree?Separate attention, directional views and trading evidence to investigate divergence.
Investigate whether price action, attention and expressed views on {{ticker}} agree over the last {{days}} days.
Keep three evidence layers separate: (1) prices, volume and available options or positioning data; (2) explicit bullish, bearish and conditional creator views; (3) discussion volume and attention. Ducky’s Reddit attention is not directional sentiment. Posting activity is not buying intent, and a creator sample is not market-wide consensus.
Align the available observations by date. Plot a price-and-events timeline where data permits, and summarize who said what, their evidence, source independence and the price response. Investigate optimism without price confirmation, rising prices despite divided views, or growing attention without new facts. Treat these as hypotheses to test.
Finish with at most three divergences worth watching, alternative explanations and observable confirmation conditions. Include the sample, missing data, sources and contrary examples. Describe a sentiment change only when the samples are comparable.
Thesis researchDoes my investment thesis still hold?Challenge your assumptions with price action, company facts, macro and creator evidence.
Stress-test this thesis for {{ticker}}: {{question}}.
Break it into three to five verifiable assumptions. Use Ducky’s latest available company evidence, macro events and creator reasoning, together with accessible charts and trading data. Mark each assumption as supported, challenged or unresolved. Show the strongest support, strongest counterevidence, source dates and the next verification point.
Where data permits, place key disclosures, creator stance changes and price or volume moves on one timeline. Identify which developments merely moved the price and which challenge the thesis. Calculate metrics only from sufficient tool-returned or supplied data; label each chart’s coverage.
Propose three observable developments that could invalidate the current assessment. Highlight conflicting signals. Finish with a concise research conclusion: what still holds, what needs reconsideration and what to investigate next. Separate facts, attributed views and your inference. More coverage alone is not stronger evidence.
Thesis researchWhat is actually new in this market story?Trace the original source and separate new facts from recycled coverage.
I saw this claim about {{ticker}}: {{claim}}.
Trace it through Ducky’s available records to the original source. Distinguish when the event occurred, when it was first disclosed and when it resurfaced. Identify genuinely new or revised facts. Group reports that cite the same underlying source, and separate independent verification, creator interpretation and hindsight.
Build a table: key claim → original evidence → difference from prior information → possible effect on the thesis. Retain counterevidence and uncertainty. If price and volume data are available, place the reaction before or after disclosure without assuming causation.
Finish by identifying the assumption this story makes worth revisiting. Say plainly if it is recycled coverage. If the original source, identity or critical data is missing, specify the smallest useful addition.
Trading & simulationIs this oversold setup backed by other evidence?Compare multi-timeframe RSI, drawdown, insider purchases and creator disagreement before building a study.
Start with completed-daily RSI below {{threshold}} across Ducky’s currently covered US equities, without adding a market-cap filter.
Screen using the available indicator, then investigate weekly and monthly RSI, YTD or trailing-year high drawdown, disclosed insider purchases and opposing creator arguments for the candidates. Separate required screening conditions from supporting research. Missing supplementary evidence must not silently exclude a stock. Use only available price, volume and options data.
Give me a short candidate table: conditions met, supporting evidence, counterevidence, data dates and what to observe next. An oversold reading alone does not establish a reversal.
Propose a base study and one comparison for Signal Studio. Discover the actual condition catalog and validate a structured playbook. Start with 90 days of history, a 20-trading-day hold, equal weights and 10 basis points per side, subject to my changes. Keep non-executable creator views as research notes. Show the exact rules before I choose to save or simulate; activating notifications is a separate decision.
Trading & simulationTurn my thesis into a testable playbookSeparate measurable rules, event evidence and judgment without changing your intent.
My research idea is: {{condition}}.
Restate it in investor-friendly language, then separate the stock universe, price or technical conditions, company or macro events, creator views and holding assumptions. Identify mandatory screening conditions versus research context.
Check Ducky’s current executable catalog. Mark what can be expressed exactly, what needs clarification and what is unavailable. Never substitute mention volume for bullish sentiment, a price move for a creator reversal, or a different threshold to manufacture matches.
For supported conditions, propose a structured playbook and one comparison that changes a single assumption. Explain the question, historical data required and gaps. Provide a validated definition suitable for Signal Studio import; keep unsupported parts as explicit research notes outside the executable definition; do not invent schema fields. If the full idea cannot be represented faithfully, ask the most useful clarification first.
Let me review the rules and comparison before deciding to save, simulate or prepare a separate monitor.
Trading & simulationWhat is driving this simulated result?Inspect contributions, concentration, costs and sensitivity to assumptions.
Open my saved Ducky playbook {{report}} and start with its existing report.
Review it as a research portfolio: which stocks or triggers contributed most, when capital was invested or held in cash, and whether the result depends on a few trades, one sector or one market period. Include returns, maximum drawdown, volatility, Sharpe, sample size and losses where available. Explain missing metrics using the report’s stated reasons.
When the saved data supports them, show portfolio-versus-benchmark performance, drawdown and component-contribution charts. Explain the stock universe, signal dates, each stock’s next-open entry, holding days, allocations and costs. Distinguish a replay of today’s covered universe from a historical membership record.
Recommend the two most useful robustness checks, such as a different holding period or higher costs, and explain the hypothesis each would test. Use comparison numbers only when they exist; wait for my choice before running a new study. Finish with the conclusions limited by gaps or sample size, without implying future performance.
Ongoing researchTurn my research into a watch planSet review criteria for price, macro and creator changes—and identify which alerts are active.
Use my Ducky playbook {{report}} and its research conclusions to build a follow-up plan.
Identify the facts the thesis depends on: price or technical conditions, company progress, macro assumptions, creators’ core reasoning and sentiment. For each, define what would warrant a fresh decision, the evidence required and a useful review cadence. Reserve individual updates for material changes; group routine observations into a periodic brief.
Separate: (1) catalog-supported Ducky condition monitors that can be prepared; (2) research questions requiring fresh reads and comparison with a baseline; (3) recurring tasks that depend on my AI client’s scheduling support. Reading a macro event or creator view is not proof of an automatic notification service.
Give me a watch table with subject, change criterion, source, cadence, delivery method and actual status. Perform a baseline review first, then ask which tasks to establish. Mark an item active only after the monitor or client task is successfully confirmed; leave the rest pending and keep the strategy unchanged.
Checked against the product · October 19, 2026