Two ways to get graded, one honest standard.

Upload a chart screenshot, or just fill in entry, stop, and target. Write your real reasoning — before the outcome is known.

A score from 1–100, plus specific strengths and weaknesses, generated with no stake in whether you're right.

Other traders grade the same setup independently — a genuine second opinion, not just an algorithm's read.

How your grades compare to community consensus and real outcomes, tracked, ranked on the leaderboard.

Is there a clear, stated reason for this exact entry — structure, confluence, a defined trigger — not just "it looked right".

A setup that names its actual trigger — a break of structure, a reclaim of a key level, a specific EMA cross — reads completely differently to the grader than one that just says the market "felt" right. The AI reads the reasoning you actually wrote, not just the entry price, so vague reasoning genuinely costs points, even on a trade that happens to win.

Is the stop at a real structural level that would genuinely invalidate the idea, or just an arbitrary distance away.

A stop sitting at the boundary of a real zone, or beyond a genuine swing point, means something — it marks the exact price where the original thesis is actually wrong. A stop placed at a round number or a fixed dollar amount, with no structural reason behind it, gets called out even when the trade works out fine.

The actual ratio between what's risked and what's targeted — and whether the target is realistic, not just optimistic.

A wide stop paired with a modest, realistic target gets flagged just as fast as an inverted ratio where the risk is bigger than the reward. The grader checks whether the target sits at a real reference level — a mean, a range boundary, a structural level — not just a number that makes the R:R look good on paper.

Timeframe alignment, higher-timeframe bias, and whether multiple real factors support the trade or just one.

A single confirming factor on a low timeframe, with no higher-timeframe context at all, consistently reads as a weaker setup — even a technically clean one. A trade where several real things line up — trend, structure, a specific signal — earns real credit for that alignment, not just for looking neat on the chart.

Your TradingView alert posts automatically — entry, stop, target, reasoning, all captured the moment it triggers.

Scored before the outcome is known, the same standard applied to every manual post on the platform.

Real win/loss, real R:R, real P/L, logged the instant the signal actually closes, not estimated.

Win rate by hour, by day, by setup, once there's an actual sample size worth trusting.

A specific number to adjust, grounded in your own results, not generic advice or a guess.