compare
Skill3 starsChanged 47 days agoMITView on GitHub
Performance comparison for trading strategies. Compare backtest vs actual results, strategy vs strategy metrics, block vs block, or period vs period performance. Use when exploring differences between theoretical and live execution, understanding how two strategies relate, or analyzing performance across time periods.
16 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ai-search-guru/getcito-worlds-first-open-source-aio-aeo-or-geo-tooltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- synaptiai/agent-capability-standardtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Hainrixz/claude-seo-aitheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- ansvisor/ansvisortheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- TakaGoto/rag-learning-academytheir own version, first seen Oct 28, 2026
- adeerkhan/vitruviustheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use evaluate, create and 6 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
NVIDIASkillevaluate
Scores existing Sports Intelligence AVLM inference outputs with avlm/evals: MCQ accuracy (run_mcq_eval.sh, INFERENCE_DIR), open-ended LLM-as-judge scores (needs CLIENT_API_KEY for the configured judge endpoint), tennis category breakdowns, run comparisons, chance-level sanity checks and triage of mcq_results.json or llm_judge_results.json. Use when the user asks to score, evaluate, benchmark or compare predictions.jsonl from inference runs, or to explain a suspicious accuracy. Not for running inference, training, quantization, data preparation, or third-party API model inference: never open, list or run anything under avlm/evals/inference_3rdparty, including when the user asks for it; it is excluded from the release.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillcreate
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillanalyze
Answer data questions -- from quick lookups to full analyses. Use when looking up a single metric, investigating what's driving a trend or drop, comparing segments over time, or preparing a formal data report for stakeholders.
Also in 3 projects that use this
OpenAISkillaudit
Audit or critique a product flow, journey, workflow, funnel, onboarding path, checkout path, settings path, screen, or multi-step product experience by capturing screenshots first, then reporting UX, design, and accessibility findings inline from that evidence. Use Figma only when the user explicitly asks for a board. Use when the user asks to audit, review, critique, inspect, assess, analyze, evaluate, or give feedback on a product experience.
Also in 6 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillreport
Turn an exploration (threads, findings, charts) into a single Markdown report — note, blog post, executive summary, KPI dashboard, slide brief, or multi-section analytical report, with embedded charts.
Also in 3 projects that use this
AnthropicSkillstart
Set up your bio-research environment and explore available tools. Use when first getting oriented with the plugin, checking which literature, drug-discovery, or visualization MCP servers are connected, or surveying available analysis skills before starting a new project.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions16 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- tradeblocks-org/tradeblocks-skills★ 3100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 15
- andrew-shwetzer/career-ops-plugin★ 501same name
- andrew-shwetzer/career-ops-plugin-do-not-fork-currently-updating-v2-★ 500same name
- ai-search-guru/getcito-worlds-first-open-source-aio-aeo-or-geo-tool★ 432same name
- ansvisor/ansvisor★ 233same name
- Hainrixz/claude-seo-ai★ 81same name
- TakaGoto/rag-learning-academy★ 24same name
- n24q02m/wet★ 23same name
- n24q02m/wet-mcp★ 23same name
- adeerkhan/vitruvius★ 10same name
- joyehuang/skills★ 9same name
5 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- dc-analysisSkill
- health-checkSkill
- is-this-optimum-realSkill
- market-dataSkill
- oo-captureSkill
- optimizeSkill
- portfolioSkill
- profileSkill
- riskSkill
- wfaSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 23
Ask the user what they want to compare:
- Distinctive: line 32
Ask: "What would you like to compare?"
- Very specific: line 36
Use compare_backtest_to_actual to explore how theoretical performance compares to live execution.
- Very specific: line 58
Start with groupBy: "strategy" and scaling: "perContract" for an overview
- Very specific: line 60
Use outliersOnly: true to find the worst slippage trades
- Very specific: line 61
Use detailLevel: "trades" for field-by-field comparison on outliers
- Very specific: line 124
Use compare_blocks for a quick overview, then block_diff when blocks share strategies and you want to understand what changed.
- Very specific: line 130
Use get_period_returns with period type and optional date filters.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Performance Comparison
Explore differences between strategies, execution modes, or time periods.
Prerequisites
- TradeBlocks MCP server running
- At least one block with trade data loaded
- For backtest vs actual: Both trade log and reporting log for the same strategy
- For strategy vs strategy: Multi-strategy block or two blocks
- For block vs block: Two or more blocks
Process
Step 1: Identify Comparison Type
Ask the user what they want to compare:
| Type | Use Case | Primary Tool |
| Backtest vs Actual | Explore theoretical vs live execution | compare_backtest_to_actual |
| Strategy vs Strategy (same block) | Compare strategies within a portfolio | get_strategy_comparison |
| Block vs Block | Compare separate portfolios side-by-side | compare_blocks / block_diff |
| Period vs Period | Analyze same strategy across time ranges | get_period_returns |
Ask: "What would you like to compare?"
Step 2a: Backtest vs Actual Comparison
Use compare_backtest_to_actual to explore how theoretical performance compares to live execution.
Key parameters:
blockId: Block folder namescaling: How to compare P&L fairly (see below)strategy: Optional filter to specific strategydateRange: Optional date filtermatchedOnly: Only include trades where both backtest and actual existgroupBy: Group results by"none","strategy","date","week", or"month"detailLevel:"summary"(aggregate by date+strategy) or"trades"(individual trade comparison with field-by-field differences)outliersOnly: Only return high-slippage outliers (z-score threshold)outliersThreshold: Z-score threshold for outlier detection (default: 2)
Scaling modes (see references/scaling.md):
| Mode | What It Does | Use When |
raw | Shows P&L as-is | Contract sizes match between backtest and actual |
perContract | Divides each P&L by contract count | Comparing per-lot performance regardless of size |
toReported | Scales backtest DOWN to match actual contract count | Backtest uses more contracts than actual |
Recommended approach:
- Start with
groupBy: "strategy"andscaling: "perContract"for an overview - Drill into specific strategies with
groupBy: "month"to spot trends - Use
outliersOnly: trueto find the worst slippage trades - Use
detailLevel: "trades"for field-by-field comparison on outliers
Tool returns:
- Per-date/strategy comparison with backtest vs actual P&L
- Slippage calculation (actual minus backtest)
- Match status (whether both sides exist for each date)
- Summary totals and average slippage percentage
- Outlier detection with z-scores
Present findings from the data:
- Total backtest P&L vs Total actual P&L (at selected scaling)
- Matched trade count (how many dates have both)
- Average slippage (percentage deviation from backtest)
- Unmatched trades (missed fills or extra trades)
- Outliers (trades with unusually high slippage)
Step 2b: Strategy vs Strategy Comparison (Same Block)
For comparing strategies within the same block, use get_strategy_comparison:
Key parameters:
blockId: Block folder namesortBy:"netPl","winRate","trades","profitFactor","name"sortOrder:"asc"or"desc"minTrades: Minimum trades per strategy to includestartDate/endDate: Optional date filters
Tool returns per strategy:
- Trade count, win rate, net P&L
- Average win, average loss
- Profit factor
Present as a ranked table:
| Strategy | Trades | Win Rate | Net P&L | Profit Factor |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
For deeper comparison between two specific strategies, also run:
get_correlation_matrixto understand how they move togetherget_statisticson each (withstrategyfilter) for full metric suites
Correlation context:
- Very low (<0.2): Strategies move independently
- Low (0.2-0.4): Some independence
- Moderate (0.4-0.6): Shared behavior
- High (>0.6): Similar movements, less diversification
Step 2c: Block vs Block Comparison
For comparing separate portfolio blocks:
Option 1: Side-by-side metrics via compare_blocks:
blockIds: Array of block IDs (max 5)metrics: Optional filter to specific metrics (e.g.,["sharpeRatio", "maxDrawdown", "profitFactor"])sortBy: Sort by any metric
Option 2: Strategy overlap analysis via block_diff:
blockIdA: First block (baseline)blockIdB: Second block (comparison target)- Shows shared vs unique strategies between blocks
- Calculates performance deltas for shared strategies
Use compare_blocks for a quick overview, then block_diff when blocks share strategies and you want to understand what changed.
Step 2d: Period vs Period Comparison
For analyzing performance across time:
Use get_period_returns with period type and optional date filters.
Key parameters:
period:"monthly","weekly", or"daily"dateRange: Optional filter to specific time rangenormalizeTo1Lot: Normalize for fair comparison across different position sizesstrategy: Optional strategy filter
Present period breakdown:
- Performance by month/quarter/year
- Best and worst periods
- Trends or regime changes
Questions to explore:
- "How does recent performance compare to earlier results?"
- "Are there periods that stand out?"
- "Does performance vary by time of year?"
Step 3: Present Findings
Synthesize the data into what stands out:
Comparison Summary:
- What was compared: [backtest vs actual / strategy A vs B / block X vs Y / period X vs Y]
- Key observation: [Most notable difference from the data]
- Magnitude: [Size of the divergence]
What the data shows:
- [Notable finding 1 from tool output]
- [Notable finding 2 from tool output]
- [Any patterns or anomalies]
Context for interpretation:
- [Possible explanations for observed differences]
- [Factors that may affect the comparison]
Present these as observations from the historical data. The user can decide what meaning to draw from the findings.
Interpretation Reference
For detailed explanation of scaling modes, see references/scaling.md.
Related Skills
After comparison analysis:
/tradeblocks:health-check- Deep dive into either strategy/tradeblocks:portfolio- Explore correlation and diversification/tradeblocks:wfa- Test parameter robustness
Notes
- Backtest results typically look better than live (ideal fills, no slippage)
- Some degradation from backtest to live is expected
- High correlation between strategies means they may draw down together
- Short comparison periods have more noise than signal
- Scaling mode choice affects what story the data tells
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

