Skip to content

docs(README): closed-test framing + trade count for the community-script board #154

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
luisleo526 merged 1 commit into from
Aug 13, 2026
Merged

docs(README): closed-test framing + trade count for the community-script board #154

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ for the full tool catalog, request schemas, and env vars (`PINEFORGE_ALLOW_ANYWH

## Why PineForge?

- 🎯 **TradingView-exact.** 307 of 311 reference strategies match TV trade-for-trade on the public corpus (the other 4 hold ≥99.9% count parity; 1 further probe is a documented TV-side anomaly at the 1× margin boundary where TV's broker emulator is non-deterministic — engine is correct, and it is excluded from the headline). On a private 415-strategy real-world TradingView scrape, the engine validates **396/396 excellent (100%)** — with **19 TV-side anomalies discovered and documented** during that research. **100 of 100** PineForge excellent vs PyneCore + PineTS on the public three-way benchmark (~167,000 TV trades; PyneCore: 85 of 100; PineTS indicator-only).
- 🎯 **TradingView-exact.** 307 of 311 reference strategies match TV trade-for-trade on the public corpus (the other 4 hold ≥99.9% count parity; 1 further probe is a documented TV-side anomaly at the 1× margin boundary where TV's broker emulator is non-deterministic — engine is correct, and it is excluded from the headline). On a **closed test set** of 415 community-shared TradingView scripts (kept private under TradingView’s Terms of Service — not redistributable), the engine validates **396/396 excellent (100%)** across **~520k trades** — with **19 TV-side anomalies discovered and documented** during that research. **100 of 100** PineForge excellent vs PyneCore + PineTS on the public three-way benchmark (~167,000 TV trades; PyneCore: 85 of 100; PineTS indicator-only).
- ⚡ **Microsecond-class.** Median **162× faster than PyneCore** across 99 commonly-timed strategies (full 41,307-bar OHLCV, magnifier-on hot loop; see [benchmarks/results/speed.md](benchmarks/results/speed.md)). Parameter sweeps load one `.so` and re-run with new inputs — no recompile, no fork, no IPC.
- 🔒 **Stable C ABI.** 28 functions, one header (`<pineforge/pineforge.h>`). Append-only across minor versions, `static_assert`-pinned struct layouts, hidden-visibility hygiene. Drop a strategy `.so` in any harness; it just runs.
- 🧪 **Reproducible to the bit.** Deterministic float ordering, deterministic bar magnifier, no internal RNG seeded from time. Two runs with the same inputs produce bit-identical trade lists.
Expand Down
Loading