01 · Freeevidence level
Quick check
Turn one sentence into Pine and run it across six daily markets in your browser. Useful for killing a weak idea quickly; never presented as a verdict.
instant · browser-side · in-sample
Start a quick check →independent Pine strategy validation
Don’t trust a backtest
that only won once.
Kill weak ideas with a free six-market check. If one survives, freeze the code and put it through the same 18-cell, out-of-sample rulebook used for every public audit — then keep its forward record separate.
✓No account for quick check✓Runs in your browser✓Fees included✓Open-source engine
Free quick check · starts here6 daily markets · in this browser · no verdict
One product · three levels of evidence
Test fast. Audit what survives. Track what you might deploy.
These are not three unrelated tools. Each step answers a more expensive question than the one before it, while keeping quick results and audited evidence in different vocabularies.
02 · Private · $99 pilotevidence level
Full audit
Freeze one strategy version, test 18 market/timeframe cells out of sample, include fees, and run repaint and look-ahead checks under the public rulebook.
fixed scope · target: 1 business day
See the audit package →03 · Included for 30 daysevidence level
Forward track
Keep the audited version fixed and record what happens after delivery. Backtest and future performance stay visibly separate instead of blending into one claim.
versioned · daily record · no retrofitting
How tracking works →Sample private audit
Not a score to admire. A decision you can make.
The report separates code integrity, out-of-sample edge, benchmark performance and fill certainty. One favorable number cannot hide a failed guard. This sample uses a real row from the public catalog.
Audit WA-001 · public sample
Golden Cross (SMA 50/200)
version frozen · 18 cells · out of sample
Decision
49/100 evidence
Do not deploy broadly. Forward-test only where the edge appeared.
Positive risk-adjusted return in 17 of 18 cells — strongest on SPX500 · 1H (Sharpe 1.82); 1 cell loses after the 0.05% per-side fee. Beats buy-and-hold by 783.1pp on average.
Inspect the complete public row →Code integrity
Pass
OOS Sharpe
0.78
Positive cells
17 / 18
vs buy & hold
+783.1pp
Fill model
Documented
Forward record
Day 0
Repaint / look-aheadStatic checks passed for this reference implementation
Market stability17 of 18 cells produced positive risk-adjusted return
BenchmarkBeat buy-and-hold by 783.1pp
Validation pilot · limited capacity
Free results filter ideas. Paid results support a decision.
The pilot is deliberately one package, one rulebook and one price. Submit the strategy first; after scope confirmation, payment starts the delivery window. No subscription and no surprise publication.
Private validation
Pilot
$99
one time
- One frozen Pine strategy version
- 18 out-of-sample market/timeframe cells
- Fee, repaint and look-ahead checks
- Versioned private report + CSV results
- 30 days of separated forward tracking
- Never listed publicly without explicit consent
Start private audit →Target delivery: 1 business day after source + payment
The whole ledger, including the ugly rows.
open the desk →Verified
0
Conditional
16
Repaints
0
No alpha
4
§ Who this is for
Finding an edge is mostly ruling things out.
There is no way to know which strategies work without a way to know which ones do not. That is the whole job here — and what it is worth depends entirely on where you sit.
01
If you are about to pay for an indicator
The seller’s backtest is the seller’s. 20 of the best-known public techniques ran here under one rulebook — the same 18 cells, out of sample, a fee on every fill — and none of them came back Verified. Read the ledger before the invoice. If the script you are weighing is not on it, ask for it.
02
If you run your own execution
Pine only runs inside TradingView until something compiles it. resin does — Apache-2.0, verified bar-by-bar against an independent implementation on 251 of 257 corpus scripts, and it is what produced every number on this page. Paste a script into the playground and it executes in your tab. Nothing is uploaded, because there is nowhere to upload it to.
03
If you publish strategies
Your own backtest is the one number nobody has to believe. Every strategy in the gallery is re-measured when the page renders, from the code its card links to — nothing about performance is stored, so a ranking there cannot be posted, only produced. The audit runs the same rulebook as the leaderboard: nothing bespoke, nothing negotiable.
04
If you need a population, not an anecdote
12,424 public scripts, sorted into four grading tracks, measured against a rulebook fixed before the run — with every guard published as its own column rather than folded into a summary. Fork the engine and disagree with a row. A measurement nobody can rerun is an opinion with a font.
- Do the classic Pine Script strategies actually work?
- Measured across 18 market and timeframe cells, out of sample, with a 0.05% fee on every fill: none of the 20 best-known public techniques earned a Verified verdict. 16 came back Conditional, meaning an edge appeared in part of the grid but not across it, 4 showed no alpha at all, and 17 of 20 finished behind simply holding the asset.
- Is the Golden Cross strategy profitable?
- It is the highest-scoring script in the catalog at 49 out of 100, with a composite Sharpe of 0.78 across the 18 cells and 17 of them positive. Its verdict is Conditional, not Verified, and it beats buy-and-hold by 783.1 percentage points over the same window.
- How many public Pine scripts survive a fair test?
- In a sweep of 12,424 public scripts, 4,595 measurements remained after eligibility filtering and duplicate collapse. Four guards were applied — positive out-of-sample Sharpe, a 20 basis point cost floor, beating buy-and-hold, and a deflated Sharpe of 0.95 — and two cleared all four. Neither has fills that daily bars can confirm.
- Can you run Pine Script outside TradingView?
- Yes. resin is an open-source (Apache-2.0) compiler and runtime for Pine v5 and v6 that turns a script into a plain JavaScript module, so it runs in a browser, in CI, or in a backtest of your own. It is verified bar-by-bar against an independent implementation on 251 of 257 corpus scripts, and it is what executes every script measured on this site.
- Why do backtests look better than live results?
- Three reasons dominate, and each is a rule here rather than an opinion. Parameters fitted on the same window they are scored on will flatter themselves, so the measured window is out of sample. Costs compound, so a fee is charged on every fill rather than subtracted at the end. And beating zero is not an edge, so the comparison is against holding the asset over the identical window.
Conditional is not a recommendation
It means an edge appeared in part of the grid — which is also what overfitting looks like from the outside.
Fills are documented, not reconciled
Orders follow TradingView’s next-bar-open rule, but have not been matched trade-by-trade against it. Treat absolute returns as provisional.
Twenty is a catalog, not a population
The reference catalog is the classics. The wider corpus sweep is where the real distribution lives.
The rubric, the 18-cell grid and the exact source of every audited script are public, and the engine that ran them is open source. Rerun any row and disagree with a number — a grade nobody can check is just an opinion with a font.
Engine pine2js (next-bar-open fills, TV rule) · scored UTC 2026-08-08 04:53 · oracle parity 251/257 · deterministic rerun — same data, same numbers.