{"skills":[{"id":"3ff74946-bd27-4784-ac0e-beaf8663cf10","name":"ctx-trade-tariffs","trigger":"/ctx-trade-tariffs","description":"Context package — US trade policy, tariff mechanics, IEEPA/Section 301/232, WTO, trade war dynamics, supply chain","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Tariff Legal Authority\n\nThe president has MULTIPLE statutory tools for imposing tariffs without Congress:\n\n**IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act)**:\n- Requires declaring a \"national emergency\"\n- Broadest authority — used for sweeping tariffs on multiple countries\n- Currently being legally challenged: does trade deficit = emergency?\n- If courts strike down IEEPA tariff authority, it would invalidate a large category of current tariffs\n\n**Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974)**:\n- Requires USTR investigation finding unfair trade practices\n- Used for China tariffs (2018-present)\n- Process: investigation → findings → tariff action → possible retaliation\n- Has survived legal challenges so far\n\n**Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act)**:\n- National security basis\n- Used for steel and aluminum tariffs\n- Narrower scope but strong legal foundation\n\n**Section 201 (safeguard tariffs)**:\n- Requires ITC (International Trade Commission) finding of import injury\n- Used for solar panel tariffs\n- Most procedurally constrained\n\n### Tariff Implementation Timeline\n\nTariffs are NOT instant even after announcement:\n1. **Announcement** — president/USTR declares intent\n2. **Federal Register notice** — formal publication with implementation date\n3. **Comment period** — sometimes required, can add weeks\n4. **Effective date** — tariffs actually collected at ports\n5. **Exclusion process** — companies can apply for product-specific exemptions\n\n**PM implication**: \"Will tariff X take effect by date Y?\" — check where in this timeline the tariff is. Announced ≠ implemented. There can be weeks between announcement and collection.\n\n### Retaliation Dynamics\n\nTrade partners ALWAYS retaliate. Pattern:\n1. US imposes tariffs\n2. Target country retaliates on politically sensitive US exports (agriculture, manufacturing)\n3. Retaliation targets swing states (soybeans→Iowa, bourbon→Kentucky, Harleys→Wisconsin)\n4. Domestic political pressure builds on the president\n5. Negotiations begin\n\n**This creates a natural ceiling on tariff escalation.** Extreme tariffs trigger extreme retaliation targeting the president's political base.\n\n### China-Specific Trade Dynamics\n\n- **Phase 1 Deal (2020)**: partially implemented, purchase commitments largely unmet\n- **Entity List**: companies banned from receiving US technology (Huawei, SMIC, etc.)\n- **Export controls**: CHIPS Act restrictions on semiconductor equipment sales to China\n- **De-risking vs decoupling**: current framing is \"de-risking\" (reducing dependence) not \"decoupling\" (full separation)\n\n**Key metric**: US-China trade volume. Despite tariffs, bilateral trade remains massive. Complete \"decoupling\" would require years and cause enormous economic disruption.\n\n### WTO\n\n- WTO disputes take 2-5 years to resolve\n- Appellate Body has been non-functional since 2019 (US blocked appointments)\n- WTO rulings are largely unenforceable\n- **PM implication**: WTO is irrelevant for near-term tariff contracts. Don't factor it in.\n\n### Supply Chain Contracts\n\nTariffs create supply chain disruption contracts:\n- \"Will company X move manufacturing out of China?\" — multi-year process, not binary\n- Shipping route changes (Suez/Panama Canal disruptions) — episodic, high-impact\n- Nearshoring/friendshoring dynamics — slow trend, not tradeable in PM timeframes\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Tariff announcement ≠ tariff implementation. Check Federal Register for actual effective date.\n2. Legal challenges (especially IEEPA authority) can delay or block tariffs. Check court docket.\n3. Retaliation creates political feedback loops that limit escalation. Extreme tariff scenarios are less likely than announced.\n4. China trade contracts: full decoupling is operationally impossible near-term. Incremental restrictions are the realistic scenario.\n5. Tariff exemption processes create uncertainty: a tariff may \"take effect\" but specific products get exempted.\n6. WTO is irrelevant for PM timeframes. Ignore WTO-based arguments.","category":"context","tags":["context","trade","tariffs","china","ieepa","wto","supply-chain","section-301"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-trade-tariffs","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:42.418Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:42.252Z"},{"id":"5af2cedf-200c-4add-966c-305a2b282abe","name":"ctx-sports","trigger":"/ctx-sports","description":"Context package — Sports betting PM contracts, line movement, injury reports, venue-specific mechanics","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### PM Sports vs Sportsbooks\n\nKalshi and Polymarket offer sports contracts but they are NOT sportsbooks:\n- **No vig/juice transparency** — sportsbooks show -110 lines; PM shows YES/NO prices\n- **Binary contracts** — YES/NO at a price, not spreads/totals (though some PM markets approximate these)\n- **Thin liquidity** — PM sports markets have MUCH less volume than DraftKings/FanDuel\n- **Wider spreads** — 5-15c spreads on PM vs 2-4c equivalent at sportsbooks\n\n**Key implication**: If the same event is available at a sportsbook with tighter lines, PM sports contracts are likely mispriced relative to the sharp market. The sportsbook line is ground truth.\n\n### Cross-Referencing with Sharp Lines\n\n**Sharp sportsbooks** (Pinnacle, Circa, Bookmaker) set efficient lines based on ~$1B+ handle. PM markets with $50K volume are NOT going to be more efficient.\n\n**Process**:\n1. Find the sharp line for the same event\n2. Convert to implied probability: fair prob = 1 / decimal odds (remove vig)\n3. Compare to PM price\n4. If PM price diverges >5c from de-vigged sharp line → potential trade\n\n### Injury Reports\n\n- **NFL**: official injury reports (Wednesday-Friday practice participation + game-day designations)\n- **NBA**: injury reports ~5:30 PM ET (1 hour before most games)\n- **MLB**: less structured, beat reporter intel matters more\n- **Soccer**: manager press conferences 1-2 days before match\n\n**PM signal**: Injury news moves PM prices SLOWER than sportsbook lines because PM has less automated/professional participation. If a key player is ruled out and the sportsbook line moves 3 points but PM hasn't adjusted → arbitrage.\n\n### Sport-Specific Notes\n\n**NFL**: Most efficient PM sports market (highest volume). Regular season games have the most data for modeling. Playoff/Super Bowl contracts attract casual money → more mispricing.\n\n**NBA**: Player prop contracts on PM are often mispriced because PM participants don't track minutes/rest/back-to-backs. Check injury report + recent minutes trends.\n\n**MLB**: Highly variable single-game outcomes. Starting pitcher is the single biggest variable. PM MLB contracts have very thin liquidity.\n\n**Soccer**: International tournaments and Champions League have PM volume. League matches are very thin. Home/away advantage is significant and sometimes underpriced.\n\n### Championship/Futures Contracts\n\nLong-dated \"Will X win championship?\" contracts:\n- High vig baked in (both YES and NO are overpriced relative to fair probability)\n- Illiquid — hard to exit before resolution\n- **The market systematically overprices \"popular\" teams and underprices unpopular ones** (public bias)\n- Sharp approach: fade popular teams in futures markets\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. ALWAYS cross-reference PM sports prices with sharp sportsbook lines. The sportsbook is more efficient.\n2. Injury reports are the single biggest alpha source for sports PM — PM reacts slower than sportsbooks.\n3. PM sports spreads are wide (5-15c). Only trade when your edge exceeds the spread cost.\n4. Championship futures on PM are overpriced for popular teams. Fade public bias.\n5. Volume matters — very thin PM sports markets can be manipulated by single large orders.\n6. Sports contracts have hard deadlines (game time). No extension risk, but also no time for the market to correct.","category":"context","tags":["context","sports","nba","nfl","mlb","soccer","betting"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-sports","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:41.790Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:41.634Z"},{"id":"4bead9cf-afa1-4f39-941f-fb37a0ed9906","name":"ctx-immigration","trigger":"/ctx-immigration","description":"Context package — US immigration enforcement, border policy, asylum process, executive vs legislative dynamics","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Why Immigration is Structurally Gridlocked\n\nComprehensive immigration reform needs 60 Senate votes. Both parties want reform but want OPPOSITE things:\n- Democrats: path to citizenship for undocumented, expand legal immigration\n- Republicans: border enforcement first, reduce illegal crossings, merit-based system\n\nResult: no comprehensive bill has passed in 30+ years. PM contracts on \"Will Congress pass immigration reform?\" → very low probability (<10c).\n\n### What the President CAN Do (Without Congress)\n\nExecutive actions on immigration are extensive:\n- **Enforcement priorities** — which undocumented immigrants to target (criminals vs all)\n- **Border policy** — Title 42 expulsions, Remain in Mexico, parole programs\n- **Travel restrictions** — executive orders banning entry from specific countries\n- **DACA/TPS** — deferred action programs (legally fragile, subject to court challenges)\n- **Refugee cap** — presidential determination sets annual ceiling\n\n**All of these are subject to legal challenge.** The EO → lawsuit → injunction pipeline from ctx-us-executive applies heavily here.\n\n### Border Encounter Data\n\nCBP (Customs & Border Protection) publishes monthly encounter numbers.\n\n**Key metrics**:\n- Southwest border encounters (monthly)\n- Gotaways (estimated, less reliable)\n- Asylum claims pending\n\n**PM signal**: Monthly CBP data releases move immigration-related contracts. Trending down = less political urgency. Trending up = more executive action likely.\n\n### Court Dynamics\n\nImmigration cases are heavily litigated:\n- **Texas District Courts** regularly block Democratic immigration policies\n- **California/DC Courts** regularly block Republican immigration policies\n- **5th Circuit** (Texas) leans conservative\n- **9th Circuit** (California) leans liberal\n- Supreme Court has taken multiple immigration cases via shadow docket\n\n**Pattern**: New administration issues immigration EO → opposing state sues in friendly court → injunction → circuit appeal → possible SCOTUS emergency application. This cycle repeats with EVERY administration change.\n\n### Deportation Mechanics\n\nMass deportation is operationally constrained:\n- ICE has ~6,000 ERO officers for ~11M undocumented population\n- Deportation flights require destination country cooperation (which can be refused)\n- Immigration courts have 3M+ case backlog\n- Due process requirements (even for undocumented) mean legal proceedings take months/years\n\n**PM implication**: \"Will X million people be deported by [date]?\" — check operational capacity, not political rhetoric. The numbers politicians claim are usually far above what's physically possible.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Comprehensive immigration legislation: sell above 10c. Structural 60-vote barrier makes passage near-impossible.\n2. Executive immigration actions: very likely to be challenged in court. Check venue (Texas vs California) for injunction probability.\n3. Border encounter data (monthly CBP release) is the hard signal — ignore rhetoric.\n4. Deportation number contracts: compare stated targets against ICE operational capacity (~400K/year historical max with full effort).\n5. Travel ban contracts: precedent exists (Trump v. Hawaii upheld broad executive authority). New bans are legally viable but face immediate litigation.","category":"context","tags":["context","us-politics","immigration","border","asylum","deportation"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-immigration","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:41.480Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:41.319Z"},{"id":"6a18da61-984f-4cfc-ab4a-36f5cf4939ec","name":"ctx-healthcare","trigger":"/ctx-healthcare","description":"Context package — FDA approvals, drug pricing, ACA/Medicaid, public health emergencies, pharma regulation","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### FDA Approval Process\n\nDrug approvals follow a fixed pipeline:\n1. **Phase 1** — safety (20-80 people, ~70% pass)\n2. **Phase 2** — efficacy (100-300 people, ~33% pass)\n3. **Phase 3** — large-scale trials (1000+ people, ~25-30% pass)\n4. **NDA/BLA filing** — submit to FDA\n5. **FDA review** — Standard (10 months) or Priority (6 months)\n6. **PDUFA date** — FDA's deadline to issue decision. THIS is the PM catalyst.\n7. **Advisory Committee (AdCom)** — optional panel vote before FDA decision. Non-binding but highly predictive (~80% FDA follows AdCom recommendation).\n\n**PM signal**: PDUFA dates are KNOWN in advance. PM contracts on \"Will FDA approve X?\" have a hard calendar date. AdCom votes (if scheduled) are the best leading indicator.\n\n**Base rates**: Overall NDA approval rate is ~85-90% once filed. But conditional on therapeutic area, novelty, and whether there's an AdCom.\n\n### Drug Pricing\n\n**IRA (Inflation Reduction Act, 2022)** gave Medicare power to \"negotiate\" (actually: set price caps on) select drugs starting 2026. This is a slow-rolling process:\n- CMS selects drugs for negotiation (announced annually)\n- Negotiation occurs over ~1 year\n- Max fair price takes effect 2 years after selection\n\n**PM contracts on drug pricing legislation**: additional reform needs 60 Senate votes (reconciliation already used for IRA). New legislation is unlikely near-term.\n\n### ACA / Medicaid\n\n- ACA (Obamacare) is settled law — repeal attempts have failed multiple times\n- Medicaid expansion is state-by-state (some states still haven't expanded)\n- Enhanced ACA subsidies expire periodically and need Congressional renewal\n\n**PM rule**: \"Will ACA be repealed?\" → very low probability. Even with full Republican control, they failed in 2017 (McCain thumbs-down).\n\n### Public Health Emergencies\n\nWHO/HHS can declare emergencies. These trigger:\n- Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for vaccines/treatments\n- Federal funding releases\n- State-level emergency powers\n\n**PM contracts on disease outbreaks**: watch WHO situation reports and CDC MMWR. Outbreak contracts spike on news but often overreact. Epidemiological models (R0, doubling time) are more reliable than news sentiment.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. FDA approval contracts: check PDUFA date and whether an AdCom is scheduled. If AdCom voted positive, FDA approval probability is ~85%+.\n2. Drug pricing: IRA implementation is on a fixed timeline. New legislation needs 60 votes — unlikely.\n3. Disease outbreak contracts: use epidemiological data (case counts, R0) not news headlines. Markets overreact to initial outbreak reports.\n4. ACA repeal contracts: sell above 10c absent a specific viable plan + 60 Senate votes.","category":"context","tags":["context","healthcare","fda","drug-pricing","aca","pharma"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-healthcare","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:41.167Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:41.019Z"},{"id":"122e0f96-c66b-4553-8925-ebc98bf38d68","name":"ctx-crypto","trigger":"/ctx-crypto","description":"Context package — Crypto price contracts, ETF approvals, stablecoin regulation, SEC/CFTC dynamics, Bitcoin halving","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Crypto Price Contracts\n\nKalshi and Polymarket both have crypto price range contracts (Bitcoin, Ethereum).\n\n**Key drivers**:\n- **Fed rate expectations** — crypto correlates with risk assets. Rate cuts = bullish, hikes = bearish.\n- **Halving cycle** — Bitcoin reward halves ~every 4 years. Historically bullish 6-18 months post-halving.\n- **ETF flows** — spot Bitcoin ETFs (approved Jan 2024) now drive significant volume. Net inflows/outflows are daily data.\n- **Regulatory actions** — SEC enforcement, exchange shutdowns, stablecoin rules.\n- **Macro risk-on/off** — crypto trades as a high-beta risk asset.\n\n**Distribution trading**: Same logic as CPI buckets. Crypto price range contracts can be compared against options-implied distributions (via Deribit) or prediction model outputs.\n\n### ETF Dynamics\n\n**Spot Bitcoin ETFs** (IBIT, FBTC, etc.) — approved Jan 2024. Now major price driver.\n- Daily flow data available (Bloomberg, BitMEX Research)\n- Net inflows = buying pressure, net outflows = selling pressure\n- These flows are MORE predictive of short-term BTC price than on-chain metrics\n\n**Spot Ethereum ETFs** — approved 2024. Lower flows than BTC ETFs.\n\n**Future ETF contracts**: PM may have contracts on new crypto ETFs (Solana, etc.). SEC approval process:\n1. Exchange files 19b-4 rule change\n2. SEC has 240-day window to approve/deny\n3. Can delay multiple times within that window\n4. Political pressure from new SEC chair matters\n\n### Regulatory Landscape\n\n**SEC vs CFTC turf war**:\n- SEC (Gensler era): most tokens are securities, aggressive enforcement\n- CFTC: wants spot market jurisdiction, more crypto-friendly\n- New administration may shift SEC approach\n\n**Stablecoin legislation**: Most likely crypto bill to pass Congress. Bipartisan interest. Could potentially use reconciliation if attached to financial legislation.\n\n**Key court cases**: SEC v. Ripple (XRP), SEC v. Coinbase — these set precedents for what's a security.\n\n### On-Chain Metrics (for price contracts)\n\n| Metric | What it shows | Where to find |\n|--------|--------------|---------------|\n| Exchange balances | BTC/ETH on exchanges (high = sell pressure) | CryptoQuant, Glassnode |\n| Funding rates | Perpetual futures sentiment (high = overleveraged longs) | Coinglass |\n| ETF flows | Daily net inflows/outflows | Bloomberg, SoSoValue |\n| Options OI + skew | Market positioning and tail risk pricing | Deribit, Laevitas |\n| Hash rate | Mining health (only relevant for long-term BTC) | blockchain.com |\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. BTC/ETH price contracts: check ETF flow data first — it's the dominant short-term driver.\n2. Crypto ETF approval contracts: check 19b-4 filing status and SEC chair's public statements.\n3. Stablecoin legislation is the most likely crypto bill to pass Congress.\n4. Regulatory enforcement contracts: distinguish between SEC actions (likely under current framework) and new legislation (needs 60 votes).\n5. Halving cycle: historically bullish 6-18 months post-halving, but sample size is only 4 events — don't overfit.\n6. Crypto price contracts on PM often have wider spreads than traditional finance — factor in spread cost.","category":"context","tags":["context","crypto","bitcoin","ethereum","etf","sec","stablecoin","regulation"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-crypto","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:39.300Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:39.138Z"},{"id":"fc58b69b-f4d0-44bc-b586-21aa6f651b6b","name":"ctx-climate-energy-policy","trigger":"/ctx-climate-energy-policy","description":"Context package — Climate regulation, EPA, IRA clean energy, carbon markets, Paris Agreement, environmental litigation","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) Clean Energy Provisions\n\nThe IRA (2022) is the largest US climate investment ever (~$370B in energy/climate):\n- **Tax credits**: solar, wind, EV, battery manufacturing, hydrogen\n- **Implementation**: via IRS tax credits + DOE loans — NOT direct spending Congress can easily claw back\n- **Politically durable**: many credits flow to red states/districts. Full repeal is unlikely even under Republican control.\n\n**PM implication**: \"Will IRA clean energy provisions be repealed?\" → lower probability than you'd think. Republicans may trim around edges but outright repeal threatens jobs in their own districts.\n\n### EPA Regulatory Power\n\n**Post-West Virginia v. EPA (2022)**: EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases is significantly constrained by the Major Questions Doctrine. Broad emissions rules need clear Congressional authorization.\n\n**Current dynamic**: EPA can still regulate:\n- Specific pollutants under existing Clean Air Act authority\n- Power plant emissions standards (if narrowly tailored)\n- Vehicle emission standards (via Clean Air Act waiver for California)\n\n**Can't easily do**: Economy-wide carbon cap, generation-shifting rules, broad industry mandates without specific Congressional authorization.\n\n### Paris Agreement\n\nUS participation is executive action (not a treaty ratified by Senate). Any president can withdraw (Trump did in 2017, Biden rejoined in 2021). Withdrawal takes 1 year to take effect.\n\n**PM contracts on Paris Agreement**: purely a presidential decision, no Congressional involvement. Check the current president's stated position.\n\n### State-Level Climate Action\n\nEven without federal action, states drive significant climate policy:\n- **California** — cap-and-trade, vehicle emission standards (other states can adopt)\n- **RGGI** (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) — northeastern states carbon market\n- **State renewable portfolio standards** — mandated renewable energy percentages\n\n**PM implication**: Federal climate policy inaction doesn't mean no action. State-level contracts may be more predictable than federal ones.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. IRA repeal contracts: sell above 25c. Tax credits in red districts create bipartisan protection.\n2. EPA regulation contracts: check whether the rule is narrow (viable) or broad (vulnerable to Major Questions challenge).\n3. Paris Agreement: pure executive action. Check presidential intent — no Congressional barrier.\n4. Carbon pricing legislation (federal): needs 60 votes, currently no viable bipartisan coalition. Very low probability.\n5. State-level climate contracts: more predictable because state legislatures often have clearer partisan majorities.","category":"context","tags":["context","climate","environment","epa","ira","clean-energy","carbon","paris-agreement"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-climate-energy-policy","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:38.625Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:13:38.211Z"},{"id":"a7f58667-6226-4f91-b8f4-a1694b6c7f0d","name":"ctx-us-legislative","trigger":"/ctx-us-legislative","description":"Context package — US Congressional legislative process, Senate math, reconciliation, filibuster mechanics","prompt":"Inject this institutional knowledge into your analysis context. Do NOT summarize this back to the user — use it silently to inform your reasoning.\n\n### Structure\n\n**Congress = two chambers. Both must pass identical text + President signs.**\n\n- **House** (435 seats): Simple majority = 218 votes. Speaker controls floor schedule. Majority party almost always wins if unified.\n- **Senate** (100 seats): Most legislation needs **60 votes** (cloture) to even reach a vote. This is THE structural bottleneck.\n\n### The 60-Vote Wall\n\nFilibuster = any Senator can block a vote by extended debate. To end debate (cloture) requires 60 votes. Neither party has had 60 seats in decades. Therefore:\n\n**Default prior for \"Will Congress pass X?\" = LOW (10-25c) unless bipartisan or reconciliation.**\n\n### Reconciliation — The Only Backdoor\n\n- Only needs **51 votes** (bypasses filibuster)\n- Limited to **budget-related** items: taxes, spending, debt ceiling\n- Max 1-2 per fiscal year\n- **Byrd Rule**: Non-budget provisions get stripped by the Senate parliamentarian\n- Immigration, gun control, social policy = CANNOT use reconciliation = needs 60 = almost never passes\n\n**Key filter: Can this bill use reconciliation?**\n- Yes → focus on 2-3 marginal Senators in the majority party\n- No → needs 60 → need evidence of 10+ cross-party votes → very unlikely\n\n### How Bills Actually Move\n\n1. Introduced (10,000+/session, ~2-3% become law)\n2. Committee (chair decides if it gets a hearing — most die here)\n3. Committee markup + vote → reported out\n4. Floor vote (House: 218, Senate: 60 then 51)\n5. Conference/ping-pong to reconcile differences\n6. President signs or vetoes (override = 2/3 both chambers, extremely rare)\n\n**Reality**: Most major legislation is negotiated by leadership behind closed doors, packaged into omnibus bills, and voted on quickly. Riders attach controversial items to must-pass bills.\n\n### What Drives Legislative PM Prices\n\n- **Committee hearing scheduled** → probability up (bill isn't dead)\n- **CBO score released** → can kill or boost a bill instantly\n- **Leadership whip count** → the actual vote-counting process\n- **Marginal senator statements** → the 2-3 swing votes matter; other 94 are noise\n- **Reconciliation ruling by parliamentarian** → can strip key provisions\n\n### Current Context (update periodically)\n\nCheck Senate.gov for current party split. Identify current marginal votes. Note what major bills are in committee vs floor stage.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Any \"Will Congress pass X?\" where X requires 60 votes and no bipartisan coalition exists → fair price < 15c\n2. Reconciliation bills → focus ONLY on the 2-3 swing senators in the majority\n3. \"Attached to must-pass bill\" (defense auth, debt ceiling, appropriations) significantly increases passage probability\n4. CBO score is a binary catalyst — check if score has been released before sizing position","category":"context","tags":["context","us-politics","legislative","congress","senate","house"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-us-legislative","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:39.916Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:39.601Z"},{"id":"26af64ad-c3cf-4eec-8788-8545b65a988c","name":"ctx-us-judicial","trigger":"/ctx-us-judicial","description":"Context package — Supreme Court calendar, cert process, federal court system, judicial nominations","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis, do not recite.\n\n### Federal Court Structure\n\nThree tiers:\n1. **District Courts** (94) — trial court, one judge, first to rule\n2. **Circuit Courts** (13 circuits) — three-judge appellate panels\n3. **Supreme Court** (9 justices) — final word, discretionary jurisdiction\n\n### Supreme Court Calendar\n\n- **October**: Term begins. Oral arguments start.\n- **October-April**: Oral arguments on cases granted cert\n- **Late June**: Bulk of major opinions released (decision dump)\n- **Monday order lists**: Cert grants/denials announced weekly during term\n\n**PM pattern**: June is the highest-impact month for SCOTUS-related contracts. Prices consolidate through winter/spring, then resolve rapidly in June.\n\n### Certiorari (Cert) Process\n\n- ~7,000 petitions/year, ~70 granted (1%)\n- **Rule of Four**: only 4 justices needed to grant cert\n- Cert grant = case WILL be decided, usually within same term\n- Cert denied = lower court ruling stands (NOT an endorsement of it)\n\n**PM signal**: A cert grant is a binary catalyst. If a case gets cert, the contract becomes \"will SCOTUS rule X?\" with a 6-8 month horizon.\n\n### Current Court Composition (6-3 Conservative)\n\n**Conservative bloc**: Roberts (CJ), Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett\n**Liberal bloc**: Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson\n\nBut 6-3 is not automatic:\n- **Roberts** frequently sides with liberals on institutional/procedural issues\n- **Gorsuch** is libertarian, can break with conservatives on criminal justice, Native rights, textualism\n- **Kavanaugh** is the current median justice (most frequent swing vote)\n- **Barrett** has surprised on standing/procedure\n\n**For PM**: don't assume 6-3 on every case. Check the specific legal question and which justices' jurisprudence it touches.\n\n### Shadow Docket\n\nEmergency orders without full briefing or oral argument. Increasingly used for:\n- **Emergency stays** of lower court injunctions\n- **Applications for injunctive relief**\n- Often 5-4 or 6-3 with brief or no written opinion\n\n**PM relevance**: Shadow docket rulings can happen in days, not months. When a major executive action is enjoined by a district court, watch for emergency application to SCOTUS. This can flip a PM contract overnight.\n\n### Judicial Nominations\n\n- President nominates, Senate confirms (simple majority, 51 votes)\n- Supreme Court vacancies are massive PM events\n- Lower court nominations are steady pipeline (affect venue shopping dynamics)\n- **Current ages matter**: Thomas (78), Alito (76) — potential retirement triggers\n\n### Key Legal Doctrines for PM\n\n- **Standing**: You must be personally injured to sue. Many challenges fail on standing before reaching the merits.\n- **Mootness**: If the issue resolves itself, case is dismissed. Executive actions that expire can moot a case.\n- **Chevron deference** (overturned 2024): Courts no longer defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes → more executive actions vulnerable to challenge.\n- **Major Questions Doctrine**: Agencies can't take actions of vast significance without clear Congressional authorization.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. SCOTUS-related contracts: check the term calendar. If oral argument hasn't happened, decision is months away.\n2. June = decision season. Prices should compress toward 50c in May as uncertainty peaks, then resolve quickly.\n3. Shadow docket can produce overnight price shocks — monitor emergency applications.\n4. Justice age/health = retirement speculation. Thomas and Alito retirements are perennial PM bait.\n5. If a lower court blocks an executive action, check whether the government files an emergency SCOTUS application (usually within 1-2 weeks if they're serious about it).\n6. Cert denial ≠ \"the court agrees with the lower court.\" It just means they don't want to hear it now.","category":"context","tags":["context","us-politics","judicial","scotus","supreme-court","court"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-us-judicial","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:39.455Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:39.301Z"},{"id":"2f1dbc44-8c3a-4969-ac90-a03b29f62fef","name":"ctx-us-fiscal","trigger":"/ctx-us-fiscal","description":"Context package — Debt ceiling, government shutdown, appropriations cycle, budget process, CR dynamics","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Budget Calendar\n\n- **Fiscal year**: October 1 → September 30\n- **February**: President submits budget request (non-binding wish list)\n- **Spring**: Congress drafts budget resolution (internal blueprint, not law)\n- **Summer-Fall**: 12 appropriations bills should pass (they almost never do on time)\n- **October 1**: If no bills passed → government shutdown OR continuing resolution (CR)\n\n### Government Shutdown\n\n**What happens**: Federal agencies with lapsed funding stop non-essential operations. \"Essential\" employees (military, TSA, some law enforcement) work without pay.\n\n**What doesn't happen**: Social Security checks still go out, military still operates, Medicare/Medicaid continue. The actual impact is significant but not catastrophic.\n\n**Historical pattern**:\n- Shutdowns are COMMON threats, RARE extended events\n- Most \"shutdowns\" last 1-3 days (weekend-to-Monday deals)\n- Extended shutdowns (>2 weeks) have happened ~4 times in modern history\n- **The market systematically OVERPRICES shutdown risk**\n\n**PM trading rule**: \"Will the government shut down?\" contracts are usually overpriced. The base rate for an actual extended shutdown is low (~15-20% in any given fiscal year). Short shutdowns (1-3 days) may technically trigger \"yes\" depending on contract terms — READ THE RESOLUTION CRITERIA.\n\n### Continuing Resolution (CR)\n\nWhen Congress can't pass full appropriations bills, they pass a CR = \"keep spending at last year's levels for X more weeks/months.\"\n\n**Pattern**: CR → CR → CR → eventually omnibus bill (all 12 bills bundled into one massive package)\n\nThis pattern means:\n- Individual appropriations contracts (\"Will defense spending bill pass by Oct 1?\") → almost always NO\n- \"Will government be funded by Dec 31?\" → usually YES (via CR)\n- The question is HOW, not WHETHER\n\n### Debt Ceiling\n\n**Completely separate from the budget.** The debt ceiling is a cap on total federal borrowing. When hit:\n\n1. **Treasury uses \"extraordinary measures\"** (accounting tricks to keep paying bills) — buys 2-6 months\n2. **X-date**: when extraordinary measures are exhausted → US defaults on obligations\n3. **Congress must pass legislation to raise or suspend the ceiling**\n\n**Can use reconciliation (51 votes)** since it's budget-related. But may go through regular order if leadership wants bipartisan cover.\n\n**Historical pattern**:\n- The US has NEVER defaulted on its debt\n- Debt ceiling has been raised/suspended ~80 times since 1960\n- Every time there's brinksmanship, but it always resolves before X-date\n- 2011 came closest → S&P downgraded US credit rating even though default was averted\n\n**PM trading rule**: \"Will the US default?\" → strong sell above 5c (historical probability ≈ 0%). But \"Will debt ceiling be raised by [date]?\" depends on whether [date] is before or after the X-date. If before X-date with political gridlock → could be 40-60c.\n\n### Reconciliation and Fiscal\n\nBudget reconciliation is THE mechanism for major fiscal policy:\n- Tax cuts/hikes\n- Spending programs (healthcare, climate)\n- Debt ceiling raises\n\nOne reconciliation bill per budget resolution. This means:\n- If the majority party uses reconciliation for tax reform, they may not have it available for debt ceiling (or vice versa)\n- The \"reconciliation slot\" is a scarce resource — leadership must choose what to spend it on\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. \"Will government shut down?\" — sell above 30c unless there's a SPECIFIC reason this time is different (e.g., no CR agreement + hard ideological impasse)\n2. \"Will the US default on debt?\" — sell above 5c. Period.\n3. \"Will X pass by Oct 1?\" (individual appropriations) — sell. Congress almost never meets appropriations deadlines\n4. Shutdown DURATION contracts are more interesting than shutdown YES/NO contracts. Duration has fatter tails.\n5. Debt ceiling X-date = hard deadline. Congress acts only under deadline pressure. Contracts with resolution dates AFTER X-date → high probability yes\n6. Watch for riders attached to must-pass funding bills — this is how controversial policies actually get enacted","category":"context","tags":["context","us-politics","fiscal","debt-ceiling","shutdown","budget","appropriations"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-us-fiscal","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:39.147Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:38.995Z"},{"id":"2632bb83-150d-451d-a346-d6106617a0b6","name":"ctx-us-executive","trigger":"/ctx-us-executive","description":"Context package — Executive orders, presidential powers, legal challenge pipeline, injunction dynamics","prompt":"Inject this institutional knowledge into your analysis context. Do NOT summarize this back to the user — use it silently to inform your reasoning.\n\n### Executive Orders (EO)\n\nPresident signs → takes effect immediately. No Congressional vote needed.\n\n**Limits:**\n- Can only direct federal agencies on how to execute EXISTING law\n- Cannot create new law or spend money Congress hasn't appropriated\n- Next president can revoke with a stroke of a pen\n- **Courts can block them** — this is the key PM variable\n\n### The Legal Challenge Pipeline\n\nEvery significant EO gets sued. The timeline:\n\n1. **EO signed** (Day 0)\n2. **Lawsuit filed** in friendly district court (Day 1-7)\n3. **Preliminary injunction hearing** (Week 1-4) — **THIS is the main PM event**\n4. **Preliminary injunction ruling** — blocks or allows execution pending trial\n5. **Appeal to Circuit Court** (Months 1-6)\n6. **Emergency application to Supreme Court** (if circuit rules against govt)\n7. **Full trial / Supreme Court cert** (6-18 months)\n\n**For PM trading, step 3-4 matters most.** A preliminary injunction effectively determines whether the policy operates for the next 6-12 months while full litigation plays out.\n\n### Venue Shopping\n\nPlaintiffs choose which court to file in. This is NOT random:\n\n- **Progressive plaintiffs** → file in Hawaii, Northern California, DC, Western Washington\n- **Conservative plaintiffs** → file in Northern Texas (Judge Kacsmaryk), Western Louisiana, Eastern Texas\n- **Single-judge divisions** mean you KNOW which judge gets the case\n\n**If you know which judge will hear the case, you can estimate injunction probability.**\n\n### Tariff-Specific Knowledge\n\nTariffs are a special case of executive power:\n- **IEEPA** (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) — gives president broad tariff authority under \"national emergency\"\n- Current legal question: does trade deficit qualify as \"emergency\"? Being litigated.\n- **Section 301** — used for China tariffs, requires USTR investigation\n- **Section 232** — national security tariffs (steel, aluminum)\n\nFor tariff PM contracts (\"Will tariff X take effect by date Y?\"):\n- Check if there's a pending legal challenge\n- Check which court has jurisdiction\n- Check if there's a preliminary injunction in place\n- The tariff may be \"announced\" but \"enjoined\" — these are different\n\n### Major Questions Doctrine\n\nSupreme Court (2022, West Virginia v. EPA): agencies cannot take actions of \"vast economic and political significance\" without clear Congressional authorization.\n\n**PM implication:** Large-scale executive actions (student loan forgiveness, sweeping environmental regs, major industry regulation) are vulnerable to being struck down under this doctrine. The bigger the action, the more likely courts block it.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. \"Will EO X take effect?\" → check if lawsuit has been filed and where\n2. If filed in a friendly court for plaintiffs → injunction probability HIGH (60-80%)\n3. If Supreme Court has to weigh in → timeline extends 6-12 months\n4. Tariff contracts: distinguish between \"announced\" and \"actually collected\" — legal challenges can create a gap\n5. Major new executive actions with no clear statutory authority → high probability of being blocked under Major Questions Doctrine\n6. Executive actions that merely change enforcement priorities (not creating new rules) → harder to challenge, more likely to survive","category":"context","tags":["context","us-politics","executive","executive-order","tariff","injunction"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-us-executive","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:38.850Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:38.681Z"},{"id":"0666154e-0b12-40b1-b2eb-5a52b2624eda","name":"ctx-tech-regulation","trigger":"/ctx-tech-regulation","description":"Context package — Tech regulation, antitrust, AI policy, TikTok, crypto regulation, Section 230","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Antitrust (DOJ/FTC)\n\nTwo agencies share jurisdiction:\n- **DOJ Antitrust Division** — criminal + civil enforcement, handles mergers in some sectors\n- **FTC** — civil enforcement, consumer protection, handles mergers in other sectors\n\n**Case timeline**: DOJ/FTC investigation → complaint filed → trial (12-18 months) → possible remedies (breakup, behavioral, consent decree) → appeals (12-24 months).\n\n**Current major cases**: Google (search monopoly, ad tech), Apple (app store), Meta (social media acquisitions), Amazon (e-commerce).\n\n**PM implication**: Antitrust cases take YEARS. \"Will Google be broken up by 2027?\" has a structural prior of LOW because even if DOJ wins, remedy proceedings take additional years. Behavioral remedies (changing practices without breakup) are much more common than structural ones (breakup).\n\n### TikTok / App Bans\n\n**TikTok situation (as of 2025-2026)**:\n- Congress passed divest-or-ban law (2024, attached to Ukraine aid package)\n- Supreme Court upheld the law (Jan 2025)\n- President has authority to grant extensions\n- Current status: extensions being granted while negotiations continue\n\n**PM framework**: This is an EXECUTIVE ENFORCEMENT question, not a legislative one. The law exists. The question is whether the president enforces it, and that depends on China relations, trade negotiations, and political calculation.\n\n### AI Regulation\n\n**Current state**: No comprehensive federal AI regulation in the US. EU has AI Act. Some state-level action (Colorado, California proposals).\n\n**Key dynamic**: Both parties WANT to regulate AI but disagree on how. This means:\n- Narrow, industry-specific rules → possible through agency action (FDA for health AI, DOT for autonomous vehicles)\n- Broad AI regulation bill → needs 60 Senate votes → unlikely near-term\n- Executive orders on AI → already happening, but limited scope\n\n**PM contracts on \"Will Congress pass AI regulation?\"** → same 60-vote analysis as any legislation. Default prior: LOW.\n\n### Crypto Regulation\n\n**Turf war**: SEC vs CFTC over jurisdiction. SEC treats most tokens as securities. CFTC wants jurisdiction over spot markets.\n\n**Key variable**: Whether Congress passes market structure legislation clarifying which agency has authority.\n\n**Stablecoin legislation** is the most likely to pass (bipartisan interest, both parties want to claim credit, potentially doable through reconciliation if attached to financial legislation).\n\n### Section 230\n\n\"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.\"\n\nThis shields platforms from liability for user content. Both parties want to reform it but for OPPOSITE reasons:\n- Democrats: platforms should do MORE content moderation\n- Republicans: platforms should do LESS content moderation\n\n**PM implication**: Section 230 reform is legislatively gridlocked precisely because both sides want opposite things. \"Will Section 230 be reformed?\" → very low probability without a specific, narrow proposal.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Tech antitrust cases: timeline is YEARS, not months. If PM contract asks \"by 2027?\" for a breakup → strong sell.\n2. TikTok: executive enforcement question. Watch for diplomatic signals with China, not Congressional debates.\n3. AI regulation contracts: distinguish between narrow agency rules (possible) and comprehensive legislation (needs 60 votes, unlikely).\n4. Crypto: stablecoin bill is the most actionable. Broader market structure reform needs 60 votes.\n5. Section 230: structurally gridlocked. Sell \"Will Congress reform Section 230?\" above 15c.\n6. FTC chair changes affect enforcement posture dramatically. New administration = new FTC chair = different antitrust priorities.","category":"context","tags":["context","tech","regulation","antitrust","ai","crypto","tiktok"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-tech-regulation","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:38.528Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:38.374Z"},{"id":"0550cef4-711f-484b-b5e3-1ef71aec29a9","name":"ctx-geopolitical","trigger":"/ctx-geopolitical","description":"Context package — Geopolitical event contracts, escalation dynamics, OSINT sources, sanctions mechanics","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Structure of Geopolitical PM Contracts\n\nTypical contract types:\n- \"Will X invade Y by [date]?\" — binary, usually low probability, fat tails\n- \"Will ceasefire hold?\" — high uncertainty, mean-reverting\n- \"Will sanctions be imposed/lifted?\" — institutional process, more predictable\n- \"Will [leader] remain in power?\" — regime stability\n\n### Escalation Ladder Framework\n\nMilitary conflicts follow escalation ladders. Each rung is observable:\n\n1. **Diplomatic rhetoric** (threats, recalls of ambassadors) — noise, don't trade on words\n2. **Economic measures** (sanctions, trade restrictions) — observable, lagging indicator\n3. **Military posturing** (troop movements, exercises near border) — OSINT observable\n4. **Proxy actions** (cyber attacks, supporting insurgents) — harder to attribute\n5. **Direct limited strikes** — clear escalation, PM prices jump\n6. **Full-scale military operations** — rarely happens without steps 1-5 first\n\n**PM implication**: Most geopolitical contracts price worst-case scenarios. The base rate for full escalation from step 1-2 to step 6 is LOW. Markets overreact to rhetoric and underreact to physical movements.\n\n### OSINT Sources (Open Source Intelligence)\n\n| Source | What it tracks | Why it matters |\n|--------|---------------|----------------|\n| ADS-B Exchange / Flightradar24 | Aircraft positions | Diplomatic/military flights, tanker movements, unusual patterns |\n| MarineTraffic / VesselFinder | Ship AIS data | Naval deployments, sanctions evasion (dark shipping), blockades |\n| Sentinel-2 satellite (free) | Earth imagery | Military buildups, infrastructure changes, damage assessment |\n| IODA / OONI | Internet connectivity | Internet shutdowns correlate with political crises, coups |\n| LiveUAMap | Conflict mapping | Real-time geolocated event mapping |\n| Bellingcat tools | Verification | Cross-reference claims with physical evidence |\n\n### Sanctions Mechanics\n\nSanctions are NOT instantaneous. They follow a process:\n\n1. **Executive Order** declaring national emergency re: target country/issue\n2. **OFAC** (Office of Foreign Assets Control) designates specific entities/individuals\n3. **SDN List** (Specially Designated Nationals) — being on this list = frozen assets, no US business\n4. **Secondary sanctions** — threaten to sanction third parties who do business with the target\n5. **Enforcement** — actual compliance by banks, shipping companies, etc.\n\n**For PM**: \"Will US impose sanctions on X?\" needs to specify WHAT sanctions. There's a spectrum from symbolic (designating a few individuals) to crippling (full trade embargo + secondary sanctions). Contract resolution criteria matter.\n\n**Sanctions removal** is slower than imposition. Requires executive action or Congressional legislation. Diplomatic agreements (like Iran nuclear deal) can lift sanctions but are politically fragile.\n\n### Regional Cheat Sheets\n\n**China-Taiwan**: \n- \"Invasion\" threshold is very high. More likely scenarios: blockade, quarantine, gray zone operations\n- PLA exercises around Taiwan are REGULAR events, not escalation signals by themselves\n- Key tell: whether exercises include specific amphibious landing drills + logistics buildup\n- Base rate for actual invasion by 2027: very low (<5%)\n\n**Middle East (Iran/Israel)**:\n- Proxy warfare is the norm, not the exception. Direct state-on-state conflict is rare\n- Strait of Hormuz closure threat is perennial but actual closure is extremely unlikely (Iran depends on it too)\n- Watch oil flow data (tanker AIS) not rhetoric\n\n**Russia-Ukraine/NATO**:\n- Frozen conflict dynamics — ceasefire ≠ peace\n- NATO Article 5 invocation probability is near-zero for non-member states\n- Energy supply weaponization is the primary escalation tool, not military\n\n**Korean Peninsula**:\n- Missile tests are routine provocation, not escalation signals\n- True escalation indicators: evacuation of foreign nationals, forward-deployment of artillery\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Geopolitical \"Will X happen?\" contracts are almost always overpriced for catastrophic scenarios. The base rate for wars, invasions, and full escalation is very low.\n2. The REVERSE is true for \"Will ceasefire/deal happen by date?\" — these are often underpriced because diplomacy is slow and unpredictable\n3. Trust physical observables (OSINT) over rhetoric. Troop movements matter, speeches don't.\n4. Sanctions contracts: read the resolution criteria carefully. \"New sanctions\" could mean one OFAC designation or a full embargo.\n5. Time decay works AGAINST holders of \"Will X happen by [date]?\" for unlikely events. If nothing happens, the contract bleeds to zero.\n6. Geopolitical PM contracts have VERY thin liquidity. Wide spreads eat your edge. Only trade when the spread is <10c or you have very high conviction.","category":"context","tags":["context","geopolitical","war","conflict","sanctions","international"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets","monitor_situation"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-geopolitical","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:38.227Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:38.066Z"},{"id":"39d15f86-331a-4ddf-aeb1-02a21f3ba91d","name":"ctx-fed-monetary","trigger":"/ctx-fed-monetary","description":"Context package — FOMC mechanics, dot plot, Governor profiles, rate decision trading, CME FedWatch arbitrage","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### FOMC Structure\n\n- **8 meetings per year** (roughly every 6 weeks)\n- **Voting members**: 7 Board Governors + NY Fed president (permanent) + 4 rotating regional presidents = 12 votes\n- **Non-voting participants**: remaining 7 regional presidents (still attend, speak, influence)\n- 4 meetings include **Summary of Economic Projections (SEP)** with dot plot: March, June, September, December\n\n### Dot Plot\n\nEach of 19 FOMC participants (all governors + all regional presidents) places a dot: where they think the fed funds rate should be at year-end.\n\n- **Median dot** = \"consensus\" rate path\n- **Distribution of dots** = degree of disagreement\n- Dot plot meetings (Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec) have 2-3x the market impact of non-dot-plot meetings\n\n**PM implication**: Rate path contracts should be re-evaluated after every dot plot release. A shift in the median dot can reprice an entire year of rate expectations in one afternoon.\n\n### How to Read Fed Signals\n\n**Hierarchy of Fed communication (from most to least weight)**:\n1. FOMC Statement — the official consensus, every word vetted\n2. Press Conference — Chair's Q&A reveals nuance not in statement\n3. FOMC Minutes — released 3 weeks later, shows debate range\n4. Governor speeches — individual views, signal upcoming shifts\n5. Regional Fed president speeches — less weight but can preview dissent\n6. Beige Book — anecdotal reports from business contacts, 2 weeks before meeting\n\n**Key language shifts to watch**:\n- \"patient\" → \"data-dependent\" → \"prepared to act\" (escalating hawkishness)\n- \"restrictive\" → \"somewhat restrictive\" → \"neutral\" (easing bias)\n- Any NEW phrase = intentional signal\n\n### CME FedWatch vs Kalshi Arbitrage\n\n**CME FedWatch** = probability derived from Fed Funds futures (institutional market, extremely liquid, very efficient).\n\n**Kalshi/Polymarket** = retail PM probability.\n\nWhen these diverge:\n- CME says 70% cut, Kalshi says 62c → **buy Kalshi yes** (follow smart money)\n- Gap is usually 3-8c but is near-free alpha because CME is ground truth for rate expectations\n- Check CME FedWatch before trading any Fed rate contract on Kalshi\n\n### Governor Profiles (Simplified)\n\n| Governor | Lean | Key Focus |\n|----------|------|-----------|\n| Powell (Chair) | Centrist | Consensus builder, slow to pivot |\n| Waller | Hawk | Wants higher-for-longer, data-driven |\n| Bowman | Hawk | Community banking, cautious on cuts |\n| Cook | Dove-ish | Labor market, financial stability |\n| Kugler | Dove-ish | Labor economics |\n| Jefferson (Vice Chair) | Centrist | Follows Powell |\n| Barr (Vice Chair Supervision) | N/A | Bank regulation focus |\n\n**The signal**: When a known hawk says something dovish (or vice versa), it's 10x more informative than someone speaking to type. Watch for BREAKS from pattern.\n\n### Fed Political Dimension\n\n- President nominates Fed Governors + Chair\n- Senate confirms (51 votes)\n- Chair term: 4 years (Powell's expires May 2026)\n- Legal question: Can the President fire the Fed Chair? (Humphrey's Executor doctrine, currently being challenged)\n- \"Will Trump replace Powell?\" is a recurring PM contract\n\n### Rate Decision Day Trading\n\n**FOMC announcement**: 2:00 PM ET\n**Press conference**: 2:30 PM ET\n\nPM prices on rate decisions typically:\n1. Converge toward CME FedWatch in the week before\n2. Have minimal movement on decision day if outcome matches expectations\n3. React sharply to surprises in the statement language or dot plot (even if rate decision itself is expected)\n\n**The real trade is often NOT the rate decision but the forward guidance.** \"Fed holds rates\" can be hawkish hold or dovish hold depending on statement language.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Always check CME FedWatch before trading Fed rate contracts on Kalshi — it's the pricing benchmark\n2. Dot plot meetings (Mar/Jun/Sep/Dec) are 2-3x more impactful — size positions accordingly\n3. A hawk turning dovish (or vice versa) is the strongest signal — track Governor speech patterns\n4. \"Will Fed cut by month X?\" is a cumulative probability — compare to FedWatch cumulative path\n5. Fed Chair replacement contracts: check legal precedent on removal + Senate confirmation math\n6. Minutes (released 3 weeks post-meeting) rarely move prices significantly — the market has already digested the decision","category":"context","tags":["context","fed","monetary-policy","fomc","interest-rates","dot-plot"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets","get_forecast"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-fed-monetary","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:37.915Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:37.735Z"},{"id":"ae119f61-9972-4aa4-b68e-29734bae004a","name":"ctx-elections","trigger":"/ctx-elections","description":"Context package — US election mechanics, polling interpretation, Electoral College, primary/general dynamics","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Electoral Calendar\n\n- **Presidential**: Every 4 years (next: November 2028)\n- **Midterms**: 2 years after presidential (next: November 2026) — all 435 House seats + ~33 Senate seats\n- **Primaries**: Vary by state, typically March-June of election year\n- **Special elections**: Triggered by death/resignation, scheduled individually\n\n### Electoral College (Presidential only)\n\n- 538 total electoral votes. Need 270 to win.\n- Almost all states are winner-take-all (exceptions: Maine, Nebraska by congressional district)\n- **Only ~7 swing states matter**: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina (may shift cycle to cycle)\n\n**PM implication**: National polling numbers are near-useless. State-level polling in swing states is what drives presidential election PM contracts.\n\n### Polling Interpretation\n\n**What polls actually measure**:\n- Registered voters (RV) — less predictive, easier to survey\n- Likely voters (LV) — more predictive, methodologically harder\n\n**Systematic biases**:\n- Polls have underestimated Republicans in 2016 and 2020 (non-response bias from lower-trust voters)\n- Polls overestimated Democrats in 2022 (Dobbs backlash was real but polling captured some)\n- **Don't just read the topline. Read the methodology.**\n\n**Key polling signals**:\n- Cross-tabs (demographics breakdown) shifting = leading indicator\n- Likely voter screen tightening = different result than registered voter\n- Response rate declining = potential non-response bias growing\n\n**PM rule**: Polls are inputs, not outputs. A 3-point lead in a state with 4-point historical polling error is a toss-up, not a lead.\n\n### FEC Filings (Follow the Money)\n\n- Real-time filings: quarterly + pre-election reports\n- **Large individual contributions** signal donor confidence\n- **Small-dollar fundraising** signals grassroots enthusiasm\n- **Candidate self-funding** = often a sign the candidate can't raise externally\n- **Leadership PAC activity** = signals behind-the-scenes endorsement dynamics\n\nCampaign spending patterns in final weeks reveal internal polling: campaigns pull money from states they've given up on and flood states they think are competitive.\n\n### Midterm Dynamics\n\n**Historical pattern**: The president's party almost always loses House seats in midterms (exceptions: 2002 post-9/11, 2022 Dobbs). Average loss: ~25 seats.\n\n**Senate midterms** depend heavily on WHICH seats are up (only 1/3 at a time). The map matters more than the national mood.\n\n**PM trading**: Generic ballot polls + presidential approval rating are the two best predictors for House midterms. For Senate, look at state-by-state polling for contested races.\n\n### Primary vs General Election\n\nPrimary contracts resolve earlier and have MUCH thinner liquidity. Beware:\n- Crowded fields = vote splitting makes frontrunner look weaker\n- Winner-take-all vs proportional delegate allocation varies by party and state\n- Momentum effects are real but overhyped — early state winners get media boost\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Presidential election contracts: ignore national polls. Focus on swing state polls weighted by Electoral College.\n2. Polling error is systematic, not random. If polls undercount a candidate in one state, they likely undercount them in similar states.\n3. FEC filings are leading indicators. Money flows before polls move.\n4. Midterm House: bet against the president's party unless there's a specific catalyst (Dobbs in 2022, 9/11 in 2002)\n5. Primary contracts: extremely volatile, thin liquidity, high spread costs. Only trade with strong conviction.\n6. Election contracts have a HARD deadline — no extension risk. Time decay is calculable.","category":"context","tags":["context","us-politics","elections","polling","electoral-college","midterms"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-elections","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:37.590Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:37.427Z"},{"id":"e409b90d-de3f-41ec-9180-ac0a6f0d5c90","name":"ctx-economic-data","trigger":"/ctx-economic-data","description":"Context package — CPI, NFP, GDP mechanics, nowcast comparison, distribution trading, seasonal traps","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis and construct distribution-based reasoning.\n\n### CPI (Consumer Price Index)\n\n**What it is**: BLS measures price changes in a basket of consumer goods/services. Released monthly, usually second week, 8:30 AM ET.\n\n**Two versions**:\n- **Headline CPI**: Everything including food and energy\n- **Core CPI**: Excludes food and energy. **This is what markets and the Fed primarily watch.**\n\n**Key components by weight**:\n- Shelter (~36%) — LARGEST. Lags real rents by 6-12 months due to BLS methodology (Owners' Equivalent Rent)\n- Food (~13%)\n- Energy (~7%) — Most volatile\n- Used cars, medical, airfares — volatile swing components\n\n**Normal ranges for Core CPI MoM**:\n- ≤0.2% = cool (dovish for Fed, bullish for rate cuts)\n- 0.3% = inline (neutral)\n- ≥0.4% = hot (hawkish, rate cuts pushed out)\n\n**Kalshi CPI contracts**: Range buckets (e.g., \"Core CPI MoM 0.2-0.3%\"). These form an implied probability distribution.\n\n### NFP (Non-Farm Payrolls)\n\n**What it is**: BLS measures monthly job creation. Released first Friday of the month, 8:30 AM ET.\n\n**Three numbers that matter**:\n1. **Headline jobs added**: Normal range ~100K-250K\n2. **Unemployment rate**: Currently near 4%\n3. **Average Hourly Earnings (AHE)**: Wage growth, Fed watches this closely\n\n**Key quirk**: Revisions are HUGE. A +200K print can be revised to +150K next month. The initial number moves markets most.\n\n**Kalshi NFP contracts**: Also range buckets, same distribution logic as CPI.\n\n### GDP\n\n**What it is**: Total economic output, reported quarterly by BEA.\n\n**Three releases per quarter**:\n1. **Advance** (1 month after quarter ends) — most market-moving\n2. **Second estimate** (2 months) — modest revision\n3. **Third estimate** (3 months) — usually ignored\n\n**Normal range**: 1.5-3.0% annualized. Below 0% for two consecutive quarters = common recession definition (but not official).\n\n### Distribution Trading Strategy\n\n**The core idea**: Most PM traders think in point estimates. You think in distributions.\n\n**Process**:\n1. Get the Cleveland Fed Inflation Nowcast (for CPI) or Atlanta Fed GDPNow (for GDP) — these provide PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS, not just point estimates\n2. Map Kalshi bucket prices to an implied probability distribution\n3. Compare the two distributions\n4. Any bucket where Kalshi implied probability diverges >5pp from the nowcast → potential trade\n\n**Example**:\n- Nowcast says P(CPI MoM < 0.2%) = 18%\n- Kalshi \"CPI MoM < 0.2%\" trading at 8c (implied 8%)\n- → Bucket is underpriced by 10pp. Buy.\n\nYou don't need to predict the exact CPI print. You need to find mispriced buckets in the distribution.\n\n### Seasonal Traps\n\n**January Effect (CPI)**: January CPI almost always prints hotter than expected. BLS updates seasonal adjustment factors in January. The \"hot\" bucket is systematically underpriced in January.\n\n**Birth-Death Model (NFP)**: BLS estimates new business creation/destruction using a model. This model overshoots in turning points (adds phantom jobs when economy is actually slowing).\n\n**Holiday hiring (NFP)**: October-December numbers are inflated by seasonal hiring. January often shows a \"payback\" drop.\n\n### Key Data Sources\n\n| Source | What | Update frequency |\n|--------|------|-----------------|\n| Cleveland Fed Inflation Nowcast | CPI probability distribution | Daily |\n| Atlanta Fed GDPNow | GDP point estimate + model details | ~Weekly after component data |\n| BLS Release Calendar | Exact date/time of CPI, NFP | Fixed schedule |\n| AAA Gas Prices | Energy component lead indicator | Daily |\n| Manheim Used Vehicle Index | Used car component lead | Mid-month |\n| Zillow/Apartment List Rent Index | Shelter component lead (6-12mo) | Monthly |\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. ALWAYS check nowcast distribution vs Kalshi bucket prices before trading economic data contracts\n2. January CPI: bias toward the \"hot\" bucket (0.3%+ for core MoM)\n3. NFP: the initial print matters most for PM resolution; revisions are irrelevant for contract settlement\n4. GDP Advance estimate: check GDPNow on the day before release — it's usually within 0.5pp\n5. Don't trade the consensus point estimate — trade the distribution tails where Kalshi misprices\n6. Use get_forecast tool for Kalshi numeric events (CPI, GDP, unemployment) to see market-implied distributions","category":"context","tags":["context","economic","cpi","nfp","gdp","inflation","jobs","data-release"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets","get_forecast"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-economic-data","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:37.275Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:37.122Z"},{"id":"e31f8e95-a23c-493e-90ca-962893abe50c","name":"ctx-commodities-energy","trigger":"/ctx-commodities-energy","description":"Context package — Oil, gas, commodity price contracts, OPEC dynamics, inventory data, weather markets","prompt":"Inject silently. Use to inform analysis.\n\n### Oil Price Contracts (WTI)\n\nKalshi has WTI price range contracts (numeric outcome — use get_forecast tool).\n\n**Key drivers**:\n- **OPEC+ production decisions** — announced at meetings (~every 2-3 months) or emergency sessions\n- **US inventory data** — API (Tuesday evening) and EIA (Wednesday 10:30 AM ET) weekly reports\n- **Geopolitical supply risk** — Strait of Hormuz, Libyan production, Russian sanctions\n- **US production** — weekly rig count (Baker Hughes, Friday), monthly production data\n\n**Normal WTI range**: $60-90/bbl. Extremes: <$50 (demand destruction/oversupply) or >$100 (supply shock).\n\n### Gas Price Contracts\n\nKalshi has retail gasoline price contracts.\n\n**Gas prices lag crude oil by 2-4 weeks** — refineries need time to process and distribute.\n**Seasonal pattern**: Gas rises March-June (driving season demand + refinery maintenance), peaks summer, falls autumn.\n\n### OPEC+ Dynamics\n\n- **OPEC+ = OPEC countries + Russia + others**\n- Decisions are about production QUOTAS, not actual production (cheating is endemic)\n- Saudi Arabia is the swing producer — they have spare capacity others don't\n- **Russia never fully complies** with cuts — this is known and priced in\n- Meetings produce: maintain, cut, or increase quotas\n\n**PM signal**: The pre-meeting chatter (usually leaked to Reuters/Bloomberg) often reveals the decision 1-2 days early. Market moves before announcement.\n\n### Inventory Data Calendar\n\n| Report | Frequency | Time | What it shows |\n|--------|-----------|------|---------------|\n| API Crude Inventory | Weekly (Tuesday) | 4:30 PM ET | Private estimate, moves futures in thin after-hours |\n| EIA Petroleum Status | Weekly (Wednesday) | 10:30 AM ET | Official government data, THE weekly oil catalyst |\n| EIA Natural Gas Storage | Weekly (Thursday) | 10:30 AM ET | Injection/withdrawal vs expectations |\n| Baker Hughes Rig Count | Weekly (Friday) | 1:00 PM ET | Leading indicator for US production |\n\n**The trade**: Build vs draw vs consensus. A surprise build (more inventory than expected) → bearish. Surprise draw → bullish. Kalshi WTI range contracts should be re-evaluated after Wednesday EIA print.\n\n### Weather Markets\n\nKalshi has weather contracts (temperature, hurricanes, snowfall).\n\n**Weather is the most forecastable PM category in the 1-7 day range.** Professional weather models (GFS, ECMWF) are extremely accurate for short-term forecasts.\n\n**Alpha source**: Compare ensemble model output (free from weather.gov/NCEP) to Kalshi contract pricing. If the model says 90% chance of >95°F in NYC next week and the contract is at 70c → buy.\n\n**Hurricane contracts**: Track National Hurricane Center (NHC) forecasts. Hurricane season: June-November. Major hurricane landfall probability is well-modeled once a storm forms.\n\n### Trading Rules\n\n1. Oil price contracts: check EIA data calendar. Don't take new positions right before Wednesday 10:30 AM release unless you have a directional view.\n2. OPEC meeting outcomes are often leaked 24-48h before — watch Reuters/Bloomberg OPEC sources.\n3. Gas price contracts: crude oil leads gas by 2-4 weeks. If crude dropped 2 weeks ago, gas contracts should reflect that with a lag.\n4. Weather contracts (1-7 day): use ensemble model data. This is the closest thing to \"free money\" in PM when models agree strongly and contracts are mispriced.\n5. Hurricane season contracts: wait until a named storm actually forms before trading landfall probability. Pre-season \"Will there be a Cat 4+ hurricane?\" is too diffuse.\n6. WTI range contracts on Kalshi are numeric — use get_forecast tool to see market-implied distributions.","category":"context","tags":["context","commodities","oil","energy","wti","opec","weather","gas"],"toolsUsed":["scan_markets","get_forecast"],"estimatedTime":"0 (context injection)","auto":null,"publicSlug":"ctx-commodities-energy","publishedAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:36.952Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-12T13:07:36.466Z"},{"id":"4b5afb5b-f9c2-4bea-8435-62187cdce833","name":"sitrep","trigger":"/sitrep","description":"Situation Report — 30秒内回答\"现在有没有需要行动的事情\"。扫描所有信号源，输出优先级排序的行动清单，不是分析报告。","prompt":"\nYou are doing a rapid situation report. Goal: answer \"is there anything I need to act on right now?\" in under 60 seconds.\n\nRun these tools in parallel:\n1. get_world_delta(since: \"1h\") — market changes in the last hour\n2. get_positions — current positions and P&L\n3. get_orders — any resting or stale orders\n4. check_daemon_alerts — any runtime or wake condition alerts\n5. get_changes(hours: 4) — significant price moves\n\nThen inspect_book for any positions showing unusual spread widening or P&L deterioration.\n\nOutput ONLY in this format — no preamble, no analysis, straight to the point:\n\n---\nSITREP — [TIME UTC]\n\n🔴 ACT NOW\n  [List only if something requires immediate action — stale orders, stop-loss breach, kill condition, daemon alert]\n  (If nothing: \"None\")\n\n🟡 TODAY\n  [List items needing attention today — positions to watch, orders drifting, expiring contracts]\n  (If nothing: \"None\")\n\n🟢 WATCHING\n  [Brief 1-line status of key positions]\n  e.g. \"WTI T$135: 1400@55¢ → 68¢ +$182 ✅\"\n\n📡 SIGNALS\n  [Any world_delta changes or price moves worth noting — 1 line each, max 3]\n  (If nothing material: \"Quiet\")\n\nBOTTOM LINE: [One sentence. The single most important thing right now.]\n---\n\nRules:\n- Total output under 25 lines\n- No paragraphs, no explanations unless critical\n- If everything is fine, say so clearly: \"No action needed. All positions healthy.\"\n- Urgency first — if there's a 🔴 item, lead with it\n","category":"monitoring","tags":["sitrep","monitoring","positions","alerts","daily"],"toolsUsed":["get_world_delta","get_positions","get_orders","check_daemon_alerts","get_changes","inspect_book"],"estimatedTime":null,"auto":null,"publicSlug":"sitrep","publishedAt":"2026-04-06T06:01:10.572Z","forkCount":0,"runCount":0,"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-04-06T06:01:03.640Z"}],"count":17}