More screenshots
Works with the AI tools you already use
AI Trading Journal Edge & Mistake Analyzer
Its purpose is not to report superficial statistics such as: Win Rate = 58% and stop there.
$9.99
AI Trading Journal Edge & Mistake Analyzer
Example session with this skill installed
TRADING JOURNAL
File
Atlas_Trading_Journal_2026.xlsx
Account
Fictional $50,000 Futures Evaluation
Period
2026-01-02 through 2026-06-30
Timezone
America/New_York
Trades
327
Instruments
NQ
MNQ
ES
MGC
STRATEGY
Name
Atlas Intraday v4
Primary Setups
Trend Pullback
Breakout Retest
VWAP Reversion
Failed Breakout
Setup Grades
A
B
C
DAILY RULES
Maximum Trades per Day
4
Daily Loss Stop
-2.0R
Cooldown After 2 Consecutive Losses:
15 minutes
Allowed Trading Window
09:30–14:30 New York
C-Grade Setups
Not permitted in live trading
ENTRY RULE
Trend Pullback requires
Trend aligned.
Pullback complete.
Confirmation candle closed.
Momentum condition valid.
A trade taken before confirmation-candle close is defined as:
Premature Entry
EXIT RULE
Do not manually exit a valid winner before:
Target
Stop
Explicit Invalidation
unless risk policy requires otherwise.
JOURNAL FIELDS
trade_id
date
entry_time
exit_time
instrument
direction
setup
setup_grade
session
entry_price
exit_price
stop_price
target_price
initial_risk
net_pnl
r_multiple
mae_r
mfe_r
confirmation_complete
rule_compliant
rule_violations
confluence_tags
emotion_before
exit_reason
minutes_since_previous_trade
trades_today_before
loss_streak_before
win_streak_before
notes
SESSION DEFINITIONS
New York Open
09:30–10:00
New York AM
10:00–11:30
Midday
11:30–13:00
New York PM
13:00–14:30
REQUEST
Analyze the entire journal.
I specifically want
Most Profitable Setups
Weakest Setups
Best and Worst Sessions
Long vs Short
Instrument Performance
Premature Entries
Premature Exits
Overtrading
Possible Revenge / Loss-Response Patterns
Rule Violations
Performance After Winning Streaks
Performance After Losing Streaks
Confluence Combinations
Profit Giveback
Trade Number in Day
Performance After 2 Consecutive Losses
Do not stop at headline metrics.
I want specific conditional findings.
For example
"What percentage of New York AM losses came from premature entries?"
Also calculate
Count-Based Loss Attribution
Dollar / R-Based Loss Attribution
Build
Edge Map
Mistake Map
Rule Compliance Comparison
Streak Table
Confluence Table
Performance Attribution
Top Action Priorities
Retest Plan
Do not invent emotional or behavioral labels that are not supported by the journal.
- Read your context and instructions
- Compiled the ai trading journal
- Generated the document
=== AI TRADING JOURNAL EDGE & MISTAKE ANALYSIS ===
Period
2026-01-02 through 2026-06-30
Account
Fictional $50,000 Futures Evaluation
Strategy
Atlas Intraday v4
Trades Reviewed
327
Data Quality
HIGH
Key Strengths
Net P&L is complete.
R-multiple is available.
Confirmation state is available.
Rule compliance is available.
MAE and MFE are available.
Streak state is available.
Confluence tags are available.
Primary Limitation
Emotion tags are incomplete and therefore revenge-trading conclusions are treated cautiously.
=== EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ===
Strongest Historical Edge
A-Grade Trend Pullback
+
Higher-Timeframe Alignment
+
New York AM
Trades
64
Expectancy
+0.27R
Profit Factor
1.81
Confidence
HIGH
Largest Performance Leak
Premature Entry
Premature entries represented
21.4% of all trades
but:
49.8% of all gross loss R.
Most Important Conditional Finding
73.3% of New York AM losing trades were entered before confirmation.
Those trades generated
61.2% of New York AM gross loss R.
Most Important Behavioral Pattern
After two consecutive losses, rule-violation frequency rose from:
12.1%
to:
38.7%
and next-trade expectancy fell from:
+0.08R baseline
to:
-0.21R.
Priority Action
Strengthen the confirmation gate and test a mandatory enforcement mechanism after two consecutive losses.
=== BASELINE PERFORMANCE ===
Trades
327
Wins
176
Losses
145
Breakeven
6
Win Rate
53.8%
Net Result
+21.6R
Average Winner
+0.83R
Average Loser
-0.68R
Expectancy
+0.066R per trade
Profit Factor
1.29
Maximum Drawdown
-9.4R
Maximum Consecutive Losses
5
=== PROCESS QUALITY MATRIX ===
GOOD PROCESS / GOOD OUTCOME
Trades
151
Net
+63.7R
GOOD PROCESS / BAD OUTCOME
Trades
91
Net
-56.1R
BAD PROCESS / GOOD OUTCOME
Trades
25
Net
+13.2R
BAD PROCESS / BAD OUTCOME
Trades
60
Net
-39.2R
Interpretation
A significant share of profitable trades came from poor process.
Those winners should not be interpreted as evidence that rule violations are beneficial.
=== RULE COMPLIANCE ===
Rule-Compliant Trades
242
Expectancy
+0.18R
Profit Factor
1.53
Net
+43.5R
Rule-Violating Trades
85
Expectancy
-0.26R
Profit Factor
0.71
Net
-21.9R
Historical Difference
+65.4R between the aggregate compliant and violating trade groups.
This does not represent a causal counterfactual.
It demonstrates that historically the strategy performed materially better when the defined process was followed.
=== SETUP ANALYSIS ===
- A-GRADE TREND PULLBACK
Trades
91
Expectancy
+0.22R
Profit Factor
1.67
Net
+20.0R
Classification
VERIFIED HISTORICAL EDGE
- BREAKOUT RETEST
Trades
78
Expectancy
+0.14R
Profit Factor
1.39
Net
+10.9R
Classification
CANDIDATE / MODERATE HISTORICAL EDGE
- VWAP REVERSION
Trades
83
Expectancy
+0.02R
Profit Factor
1.06
Net
+1.7R
Classification
FRAGILE EDGE
- FAILED BREAKOUT
Trades
42
Expectancy
-0.12R
Profit Factor
0.78
Net
-5.0R
Classification
NO EDGE DETECTED IN CURRENT SAMPLE
- C-GRADE TRADES
Trades
33
These trades were not permitted under the supplied live-trading rules.
Expectancy
-0.20R
Net
-6.6R
Rule Status
PROCESS VIOLATION
=== EDGE MAP ===
EDGE
A-Grade Trend Pullback + HTF Alignment / NY AM
Trades
64
Expectancy
+0.27R
PF
1.81
Confidence
HIGH
EDGE
Breakout Retest / New York Open
Trades
39
Expectancy
+0.19R
PF
1.52
Confidence
MEDIUM-HIGH
EDGE
NQ Long / Trend Pullback
Trades
52
Expectancy
+0.24R
Confidence
HIGH
=== SESSION ANALYSIS ===
NEW YORK OPEN
Trades
79
Expectancy
+0.12R
Net
+9.5R
NEW YORK AM
Trades
118
Expectancy
+0.15R
Net
+17.7R
Best Session
NEW YORK AM
MIDDAY
Trades
61
Expectancy
-0.04R
Net
-2.4R
NEW YORK PM
Trades
69
Expectancy
-0.05R
Net
-3.2R
Worst Session
NEW YORK PM
=== WHY NEW YORK AM IS STRONG ===
New York AM is not profitable simply because of the session.
Its strongest performance comes from
Trend Pullback
Breakout Retest
Higher-Timeframe Alignment
Rule-compliant NY AM trades
Expectancy
+0.25R
Rule-violating NY AM trades
Expectancy
-0.31R
Interpretation
The underlying session contains historical edge, but poor execution destroys a substantial portion of it.
=== PREMATURE ENTRY ANALYSIS ===
Premature Entries
70
Percentage of All Trades
21.4%
Expectancy
-0.24R
Net
-16.8R
Confirmed Entries
257
Expectancy
+0.15R
Net
+38.4R
Loss Count Attribution
Premature entries represented
55.2% of all losing trades.
Gross Loss R Attribution
Premature entries represented
49.8% of total gross loss R.
=== NEW YORK AM PREMATURE ENTRY FINDING ===
New York AM Losing Trades
30
Premature-Entry Losses
22
Count-Based Loss Attribution
22 / 30
73.3%
New York AM Gross Loss
-21.4R
Premature-Entry Gross Loss
-13.1R
R-Based Loss Attribution
13.1 / 21.4
61.2%
Finding
73.3% of New York AM losing trades were entered before confirmation, accounting for 61.2% of gross loss R in the session.
Confidence
HIGH
Interpretation
The session itself is not the primary problem.
The main historical leak inside New York AM is entry timing.
=== MAE COMPARISON ===
Confirmed Entries
Average MAE
0.48R
Premature Entries
Average MAE
0.81R
Difference
Premature entries experienced approximately 69% more adverse excursion before exit.
This supports the interpretation that early execution is materially degrading trade location.
=== PREMATURE EXIT ANALYSIS ===
Tagged Premature Exits
37
Actual Realized Result
+4.8R
Rule-Based Historical Counterfactual
+9.7R
Estimated Historical Difference
+4.9R
Classification
COUNTERFACTUAL ESTIMATE
Most Premature Exits Occurred
After One Prior Loss
During New York AM Winners
When MFE Exceeded +1R
Interpretation
Exit anxiety is not inferred.
The supplied data shows early manual exits under these conditions, but emotional cause is not established.
=== LONG VS SHORT ===
LONG
Trades
181
Expectancy
+0.10R
PF
1.41
SHORT
Trades
146
Expectancy
+0.02R
PF
1.08
Initial Interpretation
Longs appear materially stronger.
Confounding Check
72% of long trades occurred in:
NQ and ES
while:
41% of shorts occurred in MGC and lower-performing Failed Breakout setups.
Adjusted Interpretation
Direction contributes to the difference, but instrument and setup mix materially confound the raw long-vs-short comparison.
=== INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE ===
NQ
Trades
139
Expectancy
+0.16R
PF
1.48
Classification
STRONGEST
MNQ
Trades
81
Expectancy
+0.08R
PF
1.24
Classification
POSITIVE
ES
Trades
63
Expectancy
+0.05R
PF
1.16
Classification
POSITIVE BUT MODEST
MGC
Trades
44
Expectancy
-0.09R
PF
0.83
Classification
WEAK
=== TRADE NUMBER IN DAY ===
Trade #1
Expectancy
+0.15R
Trade #2
Expectancy
+0.13R
Trade #3
Expectancy
+0.03R
Trade #4+
Expectancy
-0.16R
Rule-Violation Rate on Trade #4+:
47.9%
Finding
Later trades show a substantial deterioration in both expectancy and compliance.
This is stronger evidence of historical overtrading than raw trade frequency alone.
=== OVERTRADING ===
Defined by supplied rules as
More than 4 trades per day
or
trading after daily stop
or
re-entry without a new valid setup.
Overtrading Trades
39
Expectancy
-0.28R
Net
-10.9R
Percentage of Total Trades
11.9%
Percentage of Gross Loss
27.6%
Confidence
HIGH
=== PERFORMANCE AFTER LOSSES ===
After 1 Loss:
Trades
99
Expectancy
+0.03R
Violation Rate
18.2%
After 2 Consecutive Losses:
Trades
31
Expectancy
-0.21R
Violation Rate
38.7%
Average Re-Entry Delay
8.4 minutes
After 3+ Consecutive Losses:
Trades
14
Expectancy
-0.29R
Violation Rate
50.0%
=== TWO-LOSS COOLDOWN ===
User Rule
15-minute cooldown after 2 losses.
Compliant Cooldown Trades
Trades
15
Expectancy
+0.07R
Cooldown Violations
Trades
16
Expectancy
-0.47R
Finding
Historical performance after two losses differed sharply depending on whether the cooldown rule was followed.
Confidence
MEDIUM
Reason
The subgroup contains only 31 trades and should be validated prospectively.
=== POSSIBLE LOSS-RESPONSE PATTERN ===
The following cluster appears after two or more losses:
Shorter Re-Entry Delay
Higher Rule-Violation Rate
More C-Grade Setups
Higher Average Risk
This is classified as
HIGH-CONFIDENCE LOSS-RESPONSE PATTERN
not:
Confirmed Revenge Trading
because explicit emotional labels are incomplete.
=== PERFORMANCE AFTER WINS ===
After 1 Win:
Expectancy
+0.11R
After 2 Wins:
Expectancy
+0.09R
After 3+ Wins:
Expectancy
-0.04R
Average Risk Increase
+21%
C-Grade Setup Frequency
2.1x baseline
Interpretation
Performance deteriorates after extended winning streaks while risk and lower-grade setup participation increase.
Possible mechanism
Reduced selectivity.
Confidence
MEDIUM
=== CONFLUENCE ANALYSIS ===
Trend Pullback Base
Expectancy
+0.12R
Trend Pullback + HTF Alignment:
Expectancy
+0.25R
Incremental Lift
+0.13R
Trend Pullback + Volume:
Expectancy
+0.16R
Incremental Lift
+0.04R
Trend Pullback + HTF + Volume:
Expectancy
+0.27R
Incremental Lift vs HTF only
+0.02R
Finding
Higher-timeframe alignment provides the strongest incremental historical value.
Volume adds comparatively little once HTF alignment is already present.
=== PROFIT GIVEBACK ===
Days Reaching At Least +2R:
21
Average Intraday Peak
+2.46R
Average Final Result
+1.18R
Average Giveback
1.28R
Primary Historical Sources
Trade #4+
New York PM
Trades After Earlier Loss
C-Grade Trades
=== MISTAKE MAP ===
- PREMATURE ENTRY
Trades
70
Net
-16.8R
Severity
CRITICAL
Confidence
HIGH
- OVERTRADING
Trades
39
Net
-10.9R
Severity
HIGH
Confidence
HIGH
- TWO-LOSS COOLDOWN VIOLATION
Trades
16
Expectancy
-0.47R
Severity
HIGH
Confidence
MEDIUM
- C-GRADE SETUPS
Trades
33
Net
-6.6R
Severity
HIGH
Confidence
HIGH
- PREMATURE EXIT
Historical Estimated Drag
-4.9R
Severity
MEDIUM
Classification
COUNTERFACTUAL ESTIMATE
=== PARETO LOSS ANALYSIS ===
Premature Entries
+
Overtrading
+
C-Grade Setups
overlap on some trades.
After removing duplicate attribution, these behaviors were present in:
31.8% of unique trades
and:
67.4% of gross loss R.
=== STRATEGY VS EXECUTION ATTRIBUTION ===
Trend Pullback
Compliant
Strong positive expectancy
Violating
Negative expectancy
Classification
STRONG STRATEGY / WEAK EXECUTION IN VIOLATING SUBSET
Failed Breakout
Compliant
Still negative
Classification
WEAK STRATEGY / EXECUTION NOT PRIMARY CAUSE
=== TOP ACTION PRIORITIES ===
PRIORITY 1
Problem
Premature Entry
Why
Largest recurring loss concentration.
Action
Enforce confirmation completion before entry.
Measure
Premature-entry rate
Expectancy
MAE
Gross-loss attribution
Confidence
HIGH
PRIORITY 2
Problem
Performance deterioration after two consecutive losses.
Action
Test strict enforcement of the existing 15-minute cooldown.
Measure
Violation rate
Re-entry delay
Expectancy
Setup grade
Confidence
MEDIUM
PRIORITY 3
Problem
Trade #4+ deterioration.
Action
Audit whether trade #4+ should require A-grade setup or no further trading.
This should initially be treated as a test hypothesis rather than a permanent rule.
Measure
Expectancy
Violation rate
Daily giveback
Confidence
HIGH
PRIORITY 4
Problem
C-Grade setups.
Action
Enforce existing prohibition consistently.
Measure
C-grade frequency
Net R
Compliance
Confidence
HIGH
PRIORITY 5
Problem
Premature winner exits.
Action
Track exit reason and MFE for the next 30 eligible winners.
Do not change target logic yet.
Confidence
MEDIUM
=== RETEST PLAN ===
Experiment 1:
Confirmation Enforcement
Sample
Next 30 qualifying Trend Pullback / Breakout trades
Primary Metric
Expectancy
Secondary
MAE
Win Rate
Loss Attribution
Rule Compliance
Experiment 2:
Two-Loss Cooldown
Sample
Next 20 qualifying post-two-loss situations
Compare
Cooldown respected vs violated
Primary
Next-trade expectancy
Experiment 3:
Trade #4+ Selectivity
Test
Only A-grade trade #4+
Compare against historical baseline.
=== JOURNAL DATA IMPROVEMENTS ===
Add
Explicit reason for every manual exit.
Why
Improves premature-exit attribution.
Add
Explicit emotion-before field on every trade rather than optional notes.
Why
Allows stronger separation between behavioral labels and inferred loss-response patterns.
Add
Market regime.
Why
Allows determination of whether setup weakness comes from regime mismatch.
=== FINAL CONCLUSION ===
The journal contains a measurable historical edge.
The strongest evidence is concentrated in
A-Grade Trend Pullbacks
Higher-Timeframe Alignment
New York AM
NQ
The largest performance leakage comes from:
Premature Entries
Later-Day Overtrading
C-Grade Setups
Rule Degradation After Consecutive Losses
The most important finding is not the overall win rate.
It is that a large share of losses is concentrated in specific, identifiable, and potentially controllable behaviors.
Historical analysis only.
These associations do not guarantee future performance or prove psychological causality.
ai-trading-journal-edge-mistake-analyzer.pdf
PDF · document
Example file from a real run - the skill writes it into your workspace.
Connects securely to your tools. The creator never sees your data.
What you get
About this skill
AI Trading Journal Edge & Mistake Analyzer is a premium post-trade analytics and performance-attribution agent designed to identify exactly where a trader's historical edge is created, weakened, or destroyed.
Its purpose is not to report superficial statistics such as:
Win Rate = 58%
and stop there.
Its purpose is to discover deeper conditional relationships such as:
73% of New York AM losing trades were entered before the strategy's confirmation condition was complete, representing 61% of gross loss dollars in that session.
This difference makes the agent useful for serious traders who want to improve process quality rather than simply monitor P&L.
The agent can analyze:
CSV Trade Histories Excel Trading Journals Broker Exports TradingView Trade Reports Prop-Firm Trading Logs Manually Maintained Journals Structured Trade Notes Daily Review Notes Setup Labels Strategy Versions Rule-Compliance Checklists Confluence Tags Market-Regime Tags Session Tags Emotion Tags Entry Reasons Exit Reasons Screenshots Referenced by the User MAE / MFE Data Trade Sequence Data
The analytical process is:
Inspect Data → Normalize Schema → Validate Trade Integrity → Normalize Time and Sessions → Normalize P&L and R-Multiples → Map Setups → Map Rules → Map Behavioral Tags → Establish Baseline Performance → Segment Results → Detect Edge Concentration → Detect Mistake Concentration → Analyze Entry Timing → Analyze Exit Timing → Analyze Overtrading → Analyze Loss-Response Patterns → Analyze Rule Violations → Analyze Streak Effects → Analyze Confluence Combinations → Quantify Historical Impact → Assess Confidence → Build Edge Map → Build Mistake Map → Rank Action Priorities → Define Retest Plan
The agent treats each trade as a combination of:
Market Context Strategy Setup Execution Decision Risk Decision Behavioral State Outcome
This prevents outcome bias.
A winning trade can contain poor process.
A losing trade can still represent excellent execution.
The skill therefore distinguishes:
GOOD PROCESS / GOOD OUTCOME
GOOD PROCESS / BAD OUTCOME
BAD PROCESS / GOOD OUTCOME
BAD PROCESS / BAD OUTCOME
This distinction is critical because profitable rule violations can reinforce bad habits while valid losing trades can incorrectly be interpreted as mistakes.
The agent can calculate baseline metrics such as:
Total Trades Net P&L Gross P&L Fees Win Rate Average Winner Average Loser Payoff Ratio Expectancy Expectancy in R Profit Factor Median Trade Maximum Winner Maximum Loser Maximum Drawdown Drawdown Duration Maximum Consecutive Wins Maximum Consecutive Losses Average Holding Time Trade Frequency Average Trades per Day Profitable Days Losing Days
However, baseline statistics are only the starting point.
The primary objective is conditional performance attribution.
The agent analyzes trading setups individually.
For each setup it can calculate:
Trade Count Win Rate Net P&L Average R Median R Profit Factor Drawdown Contribution Average MAE Average MFE Rule-Violation Rate Premature-Entry Rate Premature-Exit Rate Session Distribution Instrument Distribution
It does not rank setups using win rate alone.
A setup with:
55% Win Rate 0.7 Payoff Ratio
may be structurally weaker than one with:
42% Win Rate 2.1 Payoff Ratio
The agent therefore evaluates:
Expectancy Profit Factor Average R Sample Size Drawdown Stability Outlier Dependence Rule Compliance
before classifying a setup.
Possible setup classifications include:
VERIFIED HISTORICAL EDGE
CANDIDATE EDGE
FRAGILE EDGE
NO EDGE DETECTED
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
"Verified historical edge" means supported by the supplied historical sample. It does not guarantee future profitability.
Session analysis is another major capability.
The agent can compare:
Asia London New York AM New York PM Regular Trading Hours Overnight Pre-Market Power Hour Custom User-Defined Sessions
Session analysis requires correct timezone normalization.
It can calculate:
Trades Net P&L Expectancy Win Rate Profit Factor Average R Rule-Violation Rate Premature-Entry Rate Premature-Exit Rate Overtrading Rate Drawdown Contribution Setup Distribution Instrument Distribution
Instead of saying:
New York AM is your best session.
the agent can produce a more actionable conclusion such as:
New York AM generated 62% of total net profit while representing only 38% of trades. Most of the advantage came from Trend Pullback and Breakout Retest setups, while 73% of losing NY AM trades were associated with premature confirmation.
This identifies both the edge and the leak inside the same segment.
The agent performs long-versus-short analysis.
It compares:
Trade Count Net P&L Expectancy Profit Factor Average R Win Rate Drawdown Violation Rate Setup Mix Session Mix Instrument Mix
It also checks for confounding.
For example:
Long trades appear significantly stronger than short trades.
However:
78% of long trades occurred in NQ during bullish sessions, while short trades were concentrated in Gold and low-performing sessions.
The correct conclusion is therefore not simply:
Longs are better.
The agent identifies when direction is confounded by instrument, setup, session, or regime.
Instrument analysis supports:
Futures Forex Stocks ETFs Crypto Indices Commodities
For each instrument it can calculate:
Trades Net P&L Expectancy Expectancy in R Profit Factor Win Rate Drawdown Contribution Average MAE Average MFE Rule-Violation Rate Setup Distribution Session Distribution Fees as Percentage of Gross Edge
When instruments have different tick values, contract multipliers, lot sizes, or account sizes, the agent avoids naive raw-dollar comparisons.
When initial risk is available, it prefers normalized measures such as:
R-Multiple Average R Expectancy in R Return per Unit Risk
The skill performs detailed premature-entry analysis.
Premature entry can be identified only when supported by:
Explicit Confirmation State Strategy Rules Journal Tag Signal-Bar Requirement Breakout Confirmation Rule Retest Requirement Moving-Average Alignment Session Trigger User Note
The agent never invents premature entries.
If confirmation cannot be reconstructed, it states:
Premature entry cannot be measured reliably from the available fields.
When available, it compares:
Premature Entries Confirmed Entries
using:
Trade Count Win Rate Expectancy Average R Net P&L Loss Contribution
MAE
MFE
Session Distribution Setup Distribution
It can calculate both:
Count-Based Loss Attribution
and:
Dollar-Based Loss Attribution.
For example:
22 of 30 losing New York AM trades were premature.
Count-Based Loss Attribution: 73%
Those trades produced $3,410 of the session's $5,590 gross losses.
Dollar-Based Loss Attribution: 61%
This level of attribution is a primary differentiator of the skill.
Premature-exit analysis can use:
Exit Reason Journal Tags Rule-Based Exit Requirements
MFE
Target Data Post-Exit Movement Manual Close Notes
Possible metrics include:
Actual Realized R Maximum Favorable Excursion MFE Capture Ratio Rule-Compliant Exit Estimate Premature-Exit Historical Drag
Counterfactual estimates are explicitly labeled.
Example:
Actual tagged early-exit performance: +4.2R
Historical rule-compliant counterfactual: +9.8R
Estimated historical drag: -5.6R
Classification:
COUNTERFACTUAL ESTIMATE
The agent never reports estimated P&L as if it were actual realized P&L.
The skill performs overtrading analysis.
It does not equate high trade frequency with overtrading.
A legitimate high-frequency strategy may trade often.
Overtrading means:
Trading beyond the strategy or risk process.
Possible evidence includes:
Trades Above Daily Maximum Trades After Session Cutoff Trades After Daily Stop Repeated Re-Entries Without a New Setup Trades Outside Approved Setups Rapid-Fire Trades Low-Grade Setups After Earlier Losses User-Tagged Overtrading
The agent can analyze trade sequence:
Trade #1 Trade #2 Trade #3 Trade #4+
Example:
Trades #1–2: +0.14R expectancy
Trade #3: +0.03R
Trades #4+: -0.12R
Trades #4+ also contained: 64% of all rule violations.
This helps distinguish whether poor performance occurs because the market changed or because trader selectivity deteriorated.
The agent can analyze:
Minutes Since Previous Trade
to identify rapid re-entry patterns.
Possible transparent buckets include:
Under 5 Minutes 5–15 Minutes 15–30 Minutes 30+ Minutes
The agent performs cautious revenge-trading and loss-response analysis.
It does not diagnose psychological conditions.
It does not label every trade after a loss as revenge trading.
A stronger revenge-pattern candidate may require multiple pieces of evidence:
Previous Trade Was a Material Loss Next Trade Occurred Unusually Quickly Position Size Increased Setup Grade Declined Rule Was Violated Journal Note Recorded Frustration / Revenge / FOMO
If evidence is weaker, the agent uses neutral language such as:
POSSIBLE LOSS-RESPONSE PATTERN
or:
LOSS-FOLLOWING RULE-DEVIATION PATTERN
instead of overclaiming revenge trading.
The agent can calculate:
Count Net P&L Average R Win Rate Position-Size Change Time Since Prior Loss Violation Rate Session Loss-Streak Position
Rule-violation analysis is another central module.
Possible violations include:
Premature Entry Oversizing Moved Stop Farther Removed Stop Traded Outside Session Traded Restricted News Exceeded Daily Trade Limit Re-Entered Without New Setup Ignored Regime Filter Premature Exit Held Past Cutoff Ignored Cooldown Prop-Firm Rule Violation
For each violation type the skill calculates:
Trades Frequency Net P&L Average R Gross Loss Loss Contribution Setup Distribution Session Distribution Instrument Distribution Streak Context
It can compare:
RULE-COMPLIANT TRADES
against:
RULE-VIOLATING TRADES
Example:
Rule-Compliant: 212 trades +16.8R
Rule-Violating: 71 trades -8.9R
Interpretation:
The historical strategy edge remained materially stronger when the trader followed the defined process.
The agent can also identify violation clustering.
Example:
Premature Entry + New York PM + After Two Losses
may be materially worse than premature entries generally.
Streak analysis examines behavior and performance after:
One Win Two Wins Three or More Wins One Loss Two Losses Three or More Losses
Metrics include:
Next-Trade Expectancy Position Size Risk Amount Setup Grade Rule Compliance Time to Next Trade Session Instrument
Example:
After a winning trade: +0.12R expectancy
After a losing trade: -0.04R
After two consecutive losses: -0.19R
Rule-violation rate after two losses: 37%
Baseline violation rate: 11%
This reveals that the performance deterioration may come from trader behavior rather than strategy mechanics.
The agent can analyze risk escalation after wins and losses.
Possible observations include:
Average risk rises 27% after three consecutive wins.
Average risk rises 19% after two consecutive losses.
These are historical associations.
The skill does not automatically diagnose:
Overconfidence Revenge Martingale
unless evidence supports those labels.
Drawdown-state behavior can also be analyzed.
Possible states include:
At Equity High Mild Drawdown Moderate Drawdown Deep Drawdown
The agent can compare:
Trade Frequency Risk Size Setup Quality Rule Compliance Instrument Switching Session Switching Expectancy
This can reveal whether the trader's process deteriorates during account drawdown.
The agent can also analyze current daily P&L state before each trade:
Positive Day Flat Day Negative Day Near Daily Stop
This enables profit-giveback analysis.
When trade sequencing allows it:
Daily Peak P&L Final Daily P&L Giveback
can be calculated.
The agent can then attribute giveback to:
Late-Day Trades Trade Number Setup Violation Loss Streak Overtrading Session
Example:
Days that reached +2R: 18
Average final result: +0.8R
Average giveback: 1.2R
Primary historical source: Trades #4+ after 13:30.
The skill performs confluence analysis.
Possible confluence tags include:
Trend Alignment Higher-Timeframe Alignment
VWAP
Volume Support / Resistance Market Structure Momentum Order Flow Session Regime News Liquidity Pullback Quality
The agent does not only evaluate single tags.
It can evaluate combinations such as:
Trend + Higher-Timeframe Alignment Trend + Volume Trend + HTF + Volume Range + VWAP Breakout + Volume + Retest
However, it protects against combinatorial overfitting.
When many tags exist:
Analyze Pairwise Combinations First Require Adequate Sample Use Selected Three-Way Combinations Apply False-Discovery Caution Prefer Economically Plausible Combinations
The skill can calculate incremental confluence value.
Example:
Trend Pullback: +0.08R
Trend Pullback + HTF Alignment: +0.17R
Trend Pullback + HTF + Volume: +0.18R
Interpretation:
Higher-timeframe alignment historically added material value.
Volume added little additional value once HTF alignment was already present.
This can help simplify strategies by identifying redundant confluences.
The skill also detects confluence redundancy.
For example:
EMA Alignment Trend Alignment
may represent substantially overlapping information.
It avoids counting correlated signals as independent evidence.
Day-of-week and time-of-day analysis can be included when samples are sufficient.
Possible finding:
58% of all rule-violating losses occurred after 11:30 even though only 29% of trades were taken during that period.
The agent can analyze:
First Trade Effect
Example:
After a first-trade loss:
Average daily trades increased from 2.6 to 4.1.
Rule-violation rate doubled.
This can reveal behavioral sequences that basic performance dashboards miss.
The skill uses MAE and MFE where available.
Maximum Adverse Excursion can help investigate:
Entry Timing Stop Placement Premature Entries
Maximum Favorable Excursion can help investigate:
Exit Timing Winner Giveback Target Efficiency Premature Exits
Possible entry-quality result:
Premature entries showed:
1.7x greater MAE
and:
31% lower MFE
than confirmed entries.
Possible exit-quality result:
Actual realized winners captured only 42% of recorded MFE in a specific setup.
The agent does not assume that capturing 100% of MFE is realistic or desirable.
The skill can identify late-entry or chasing patterns when evidence supports them.
Possible evidence:
Large favorable move occurred before entry. Remaining reward/risk deteriorated. MFE after entry was materially smaller. Journal records chase/FOMO behavior.
The agent creates a structured Mistake Taxonomy.
SETUP MISTAKES
Wrong Setup Low-Quality Setup Incomplete Confirmation Regime Mismatch
EXECUTION MISTAKES
Premature Entry Late Entry Premature Exit Stop Movement Target Deviation
RISK MISTAKES
Oversizing Inconsistent Risk Adding Outside Plan Trading After Daily Stop
BEHAVIORAL MISTAKES
Overtrading Loss-Chasing Revenge-Pattern Candidate Impulsive Re-Entry Late-Session Deterioration
PROCESS MISTAKES
Skipped Checklist Missing Plan Missing Screenshot Missing Review Incomplete Journal Fields
Mistakes can be ranked:
CRITICAL
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
based on:
Frequency Monetary Cost R Cost Drawdown Contribution Recurrence Effect on Historical Edge
The skill builds a required Edge Map.
The Edge Map can contain:
Edge Source Segment Trades Expectancy Profit Factor Net P&L Stability Confidence Why It Matters
Possible edges include:
Trend Pullback in NY AM Short Breakout on Gold Long Setup with HTF Alignment First Two Trades of Day Rule-Compliant Setup A High-Volatility Breakout
The skill also builds a required Mistake Map.
The Mistake Map contains:
Mistake Trade Count Frequency Net P&L Loss Contribution Average R Most Common Context Severity Action Priority
It can reveal:
A small number of recurring mistakes may account for a disproportionate share of total historical losses.
Example:
Premature Entries + Trades After Daily Trade #3
represented:
29% of trades
but:
68% of gross loss.
This supports a Pareto-style improvement process.
The skill separates strategy weakness from trader execution weakness.
Example 1:
Setup B remains negative even when fully rule-compliant.
Interpretation:
STRATEGY WEAKNESS
Example 2:
Setup A is strongly positive when rules are followed and negative when the trader violates entry rules.
Interpretation:
EXECUTION WEAKNESS
The agent can summarize this through:
STRONG STRATEGY / STRONG EXECUTION
STRONG STRATEGY / WEAK EXECUTION
WEAK STRATEGY / STRONG EXECUTION
WEAK STRATEGY / WEAK EXECUTION
The skill can perform outlier-dependence analysis.
It can calculate contribution from:
Largest Winner Top 3 Winners Top 5 Winners
If removing a few trades destroys profitability:
flag:
OUTLIER DEPENDENCE
It can also analyze:
Profit Concentration Loss Concentration Setup Concentration Instrument Concentration
The agent can evaluate temporal stability.
Possible segmentation:
Month Quarter First Half vs Second Half Rolling Windows
A finding that repeats across several months is more credible than one driven by a single week.
The agent can compare:
Full Sample Recent 20 Trades Recent 50 Trades Recent 30 Days
to detect:
Strategy Drift Trader Drift Compliance Drift
Example:
Compliance Rate: 92% in Q1 71% in Q2
Expectancy: +0.16R in Q1 +0.02R in Q2
This may justify investigating whether performance deterioration is associated with process deterioration.
The agent can perform historical counterfactual scenarios.
Examples:
Remove Trades After Daily Stop Remove Premature Entries Remove C-Grade Setups Apply Rule-Compliant Exit to Tagged Premature Exits
Every simulation is labeled:
HISTORICAL COUNTERFACTUAL SCENARIO
It is not presented as actual history or guaranteed future performance.
The skill includes strict double-counting protection.
One trade can contain:
Premature Entry Oversizing Loss-Streak Context Overtrading
The loss cannot simply be added independently to every category.
The agent can therefore distinguish:
Primary Mistake Secondary Mistakes Multi-Label Analysis Unique-Trade Attribution
It can build an attribution waterfall only when categories are mutually exclusive or appropriately adjusted.
The final improvement plan prioritizes controllable, high-impact findings.
Each priority can include:
Problem Evidence Historical Impact Trigger Rule Pre-Trade Countermeasure In-Trade Countermeasure Post-Trade Review Measurement Retest Period
The skill frames changes as measurable experiments.
Example:
TEST:
For the next 30 qualifying New York AM setups, allow entries only after the documented confirmation state is complete.
MEASURE:
Premature-entry rate Expectancy
MAE
MFE
Rule compliance Loss attribution
This is preferable to claiming:
This will fix your trading.
The skill can produce weekly and monthly reviews.
A Weekly Review may include:
Strongest Edge Largest Performance Leak Compliance Trend Best Session Worst Session Top Setup Streak Behavior One Primary Focus for Next Week
A Monthly Review can add:
Strategy Drift Behavioral Drift Regime Changes Setup Stability Action-Plan Progress Recent vs Long-Term Performance
The final analysis should prioritize conclusions in the following form:
Finding Evidence Magnitude Confidence Likely Interpretation Action How to Validate
This turns the journal into a structured improvement system rather than a passive record of wins and losses.
How to install
Works the same in every agent - Claude, Cursor, Codex, Copilot and 20+ more.
- 1
Download the ZIP
Free skills download straight away. Paid skills unlock right after purchase.
- 2
Unzip into your skills folder
Every agent reads skills from one folder on your machine. Drop the unzipped folder in there.
- 3
Ask your agent to use it
Restart the agent if it was already running. It picks the skill up automatically - no config needed.
Skills folder by agent
Click the path to copy it. Create the folder if it does not exist yet.
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be one of the first to try it. Every listed skill passes our trust checks below.
Security scanned
Passed our 8-point scan before listing
Fresh listing
Recently published to Agensi
30-day refund
Not a fit? Get your money back
Trust & safety
Security scanned
Verified clean 1 month ago
- Passed all security checks, Safe to install