Alphacouncil Agent

io.github.Zhao73由 GitHub 账号 Zhao73 发布v1.0.15更新于 Oct 24, 2026

Simulated investment committee: 27 investor lenses read the same filings, debate, and a PM decides.

已验证STDIO仅桌面金融AI 与机器学习

概览

AI 生成的概览

针对某只标的运行模拟投资委员会:并行证据工作流、方法席位、多空辩论,最后由组合经理给出结论。

可以做什么
  • 把股票代码问题变成分阶段研究流程:先收集公开来源证据,再由选定的投资方法席位解读同一批带日期的数据。
  • 运行多空双方质询,并由组合经理记录决策、失效条件与可审计存档。
  • 先区分公司、ETF 与市场指数,使 ETF 采用持仓穿透、指数采用汇总方法论。
  • 可先做无需密钥的公开数据检查(新闻与数据层),不启动委员会工作流。
  • 运行前选择深度:快速,或 15、30、60 分钟上限的完整档位。
  • 缺失输入、少数意见与反对报告都会保留为可见缺口与审阅材料。
适用场景
当你希望围绕股票、ETF 或指数问题获得结构化、可审查的研究过程,而不是单一模型答案,并希望结论可追溯到来源编号、分歧被保留时适用。也适合在投入长时间运行前先做一次免费的公开数据检查。
运行要求
以本地进程通过 stdio 运行,需要 Node.js 18 或更高版本。可通过 npm 包或 Codex 插件市场安装,README 另说明 Claude Code、OpenCode、Grok Build 及 ChatGPT Work 开发者模式网关。未声明认证、环境变量或请求头;首次数据检查不需要数据供应商密钥。仅限桌面端。
安装前请注意
输出是 AI 生成的方法模拟,不是投资建议,也不是经过验证的模型;README 说明席位为 AI 撰写的方法重构、尚待人工审阅,证据可能不完整或过时。运行会在本地运行目录写入产物。完整档位最长可达 60 分钟并产生大量模型调用,可能带来供应商费用。未经明确确认不会启动运行。

安装

在 SourceWeft 中

  1. 打开 控制台中的 Alphacouncil Agent,将其添加到工作区。
  2. 为需要使用其工具的对话启用该服务。

Desktop only,通过 STDIO。 STDIO 服务会启动本地进程,因此需要 SourceWeft 桌面宿主。

其他 MCP 客户端

参照 仓库 中的启动说明。

README

[AlphaCouncil Agent]

An investment-research council you can inspect

One request becomes sourced evidence, competing method views, a bull/bear challenge, and a portfolio-manager verdict.

English · 中文 · 日本語

[build] [MIT] [node] [stars]

[OpenAI Codex] [Claude Code] [OpenCode] [Grok Build] [ChatGPT Work developer mode]

[MCP compatible] [Core data check needs no vendor key] [Zero runtime dependencies]

Install · Try the data layer · See how calls expand · Read a report

v1.7: concise setup with remembered choices, conclusions first, expanded daily history and full method-dependency checks. Fresh confirmation is still required. Upgrade details and data-source boundaries.

Question → sourced evidence → frozen method stances → Bull/Bear challenge → PM decision + saved audit

Historical UI recording (MP4) · Historical report artifact (SOX, Chinese)

The recording predates the current 26-seat candidate. It demonstrates an earlier interface only—not current timing, method fidelity, data accuracy, four-code-host validation, or ChatGPT Work validation.

One question. An inspectable case.

AlphaCouncil turns a ticker question into a reviewable research process. Parallel evidence workers gather public sources, selected investment-method seats interpret the same dated facts, bull and bear challenge the case, and a portfolio manager records the decision and its invalidation conditions. Missing inputs stay visible instead of being filled with guesses.

The same repository supports Codex, Claude Code, OpenCode, and Grok Build, plus a tool-only ChatGPT Work developer-mode gateway. It classifies companies, ETFs, and market indices before research so a basket is not analyzed as if it were an operating company.

Install in Codex

Prerequisite: Node.js 18 or newer. Install with these two shell commands:

bash
codex plugin marketplace add Zhao73/alphacouncil-agentcodex plugin add alphacouncil-agent@alphacouncil

Plugins load when Codex starts. Fully quit and restart Codex, open a new session, then enter this in the Codex composer:

text
@alphacouncil-agent analyze AAPL

For ChatGPT Work developer mode, Claude Code, OpenCode, Grok Build, Windows, troubleshooting, and the optional global npm command, use the complete install guide.

Free first run

Check the keyless public-data layer before starting a council:

text
# Codex@alphacouncil-agent AAPL news
# Claude Code, OpenCode, or Grok Build/alpha AAPL news

This check starts no council workers and requires no data-vendor key. For bounded research in Codex, use @alphacouncil-agent AAPL quick; on the three slash-command hosts, use /alpha AAPL quick.

Choose the depth before it runs

AlphaCouncil shows the work plan first. Full research asks separately for method seats, evidence breadth, and depth; the user confirms them before workers start. Full tiers use 15 / 30 / 60 minute ceilings—never a hidden token or currency estimate.

RunModel-call structureTime ceiling
Data checkKeyless tools only; no council workers and no additional model fan-outOutside the council tiers
Quick research4 evidence workers in parallel → 1–4 method seats in parallel → Bull and Bear in parallel → PM10 minutes
Full — fast8 core or exactly 11 all-scope evidence workers start together; each selected method stance is frozen deterministically before one isolated explanation worker; 3 debate rounds → PM15 minutes
Full — normalSame confirmed roster, frozen-stance sequence, 3 debate rounds, and PM, with a larger depth envelope30 minutes
Full — slowSame confirmed roster and stages with the largest depth envelope60 minutes

These are queue-to-terminal persistence ceilings, not measured completion times. They guarantee an explicit terminal record even when work is incomplete; a successful live fast run within 15 minutes has not yet been demonstrated across the four hosts. Fast keeps the full contract but uses an auditable stage-aware reasoning profile and one shared lifecycle budget per primary/retry/repair chain; retries cannot silently double a seat's cap.

When an instrument classification and typed-fact coverage are already available, the selector also shows an eight-family advisory method match derived from all 26 physical pack manifests. An explicit objective and holding horizon additionally calibrate the match and separate directional, non-voting risk, and context-only contributions; out_of_scope is never a negative vote. For a one-year directional request, the PM maps sourced base-case total return to one published rating rubric instead of counting conservative method seats; the server binds the frozen price/currency and recomputes that return from a same-currency target plus income. An out_of_scope seat remains visible in the method bench but is structurally absent from the PM rating path. It is only a prefill: every pack remains selectable, no run starts without explicit confirmation, and a missing classification produces no guessed default. The output represents AI-generated method simulations—not human experts, independent models, or a promise of profit. See method-panel recommendation and seat evidence.

Only the slow run with all methods and all evidence workers enables the additional verification path; the other full tiers do not claim that extra check.

What you gain

BenefitWhat it changes
A council, not one answerEvidence specialists, method seats, opposing cases, and a PM expose where agreement comes from.
A stance before the storyEach selected full-run method stance is fixed from structured inputs before its isolated explanation is written.
Claims you can traceMaterial report claims must point to source IDs; missing evidence remains a stated gap.
Disagreement that survives synthesisThree cross-examination rounds and persisted minority or opposing reports keep the losing case available for review.
The right research path for the assetCompanies use issuer evidence; ETFs use dated holdings look-through; indices use aggregate methodology. The first data check is keyless.

How the architecture differs

This compares workflow shapes, not named products. A particular tool may implement a different design.

Review concernSingle-model reply or common shared-context flowAlphaCouncil
Correlated errorsOne shared context can carry an early mistake into every later stepEvidence seats and opposing paths run in isolated workers; they may still use the same provider or model and are not independent models
Position formationThe position can be composed together with its explanationA structured stance is frozen before explanatory prose
Source traceTraceability depends on the prompt and hostEvery material claim is required to carry a source ID
Minority viewDissent can be folded into the final summaryMinority and opposing reports remain surfaced as review artifacts

What the seats are—and are not

The method-seat formulas are AI-authored reconstructions of published methods, pending human review. The named practitioners have not reviewed or endorsed these seats. They are not impersonations, independent models, or validated replicas. A stance is a structured argument to check against its inputs and sources—not a validated investment model.

Current source evidence boundary: 26 provisional method seats, 0 validated method models, 0/8 registered-and-completed canonical evaluation runs, and 0/4 live-host end-to-end runs. Passing source tests does not change those zeros.

Disclaimer

AlphaCouncil is for education and research only. It is not investment advice, a recommendation, or a solicitation. AI-generated analysis can be incomplete, outdated, or wrong. Verify the evidence yourself and consult a licensed professional before making an investment decision. The authors accept no liability for losses.

Go deeper

Runtime outputs are written outside the repository under ~/.alphacouncil-agent/runs/<run_id>/.

[AlphaCouncil]

Evidence first. Disagreement visible. Decisions reviewable.

↑ Back to top

来源:README.md,提交 f8876d7

工具

0
SourceWeft 尚未在沙箱中启动过该软件包,因此其工具未知。

版本历史

1
  1. v1.0.15最新Sep 16, 2026

评分

已满足适用检查项的 50%

该评分衡量此收录条目的完整程度,依据注册中心条目、端点与公开来源计算得出。它不是对服务器本身的评价,也不表示服务器安全或当前可用:可连通性是带日期的检查结果,评分也不包含安装量或用户评价。

  • 近 30 天内可连通25 分

    请保持端点能够响应 MCP 握手;SourceWeft 每 30 天探测一次。

  • 已声明认证方式10 分

    请在注册中心条目中声明凭据请求头,或保持端点能够响应探测,以便判定其认证方式。

  • 已列出工具15 分

    请让服务器在无凭据时响应 tools/list,或发布可在沙箱中无凭据启动的软件包。

  • 描述必需15 分
  • 图标10 分
  • 文档15 分
  • 许可证10 分