pinescript-plugin

Pine Script v6 for coding agents — backed by a real validator, not prose.

The problem

Ask any coding agent for a TradingView indicator and you get code that looks right, reads fluently, and does not compile.

// Confident. Fluent. Four compile errors.
l = line.new(x1=1, y1=2, x2=3, y2=4, colour=color.red)   // it's `color`, not `colour`
plotshape(cond, shape=shape.triangleup)                   // it's `style=`, not `shape=`
v = math.clamp(x, 0, 1)                                   // math.clamp doesn't exist in Pine
b = box.new(left=1, top=2, right=3, bottom=4, textalign=text.align_left)  // box uses text_halign

Three things make Pine unusually hostile to a language model:

1. Parameter names are not guessable. label.new takes textalign. box.new takes text_halign. Nothing about either name implies the other.

2. Several functions have two valid call forms. line.new, label.new and box.new each accept a chart.point or independent coordinates. A model that has only seen one form will insist the other is wrong.

3. The language keeps moving. TradingView shipped request.footprint(), multiline strings and calc_on_every_history_tick in the last eighteen months — and removed the wrapped-line indentation rules in December 2025. Training data goes stale in both directions.

The result is a loop you have probably lived: the agent writes Pine, you paste it into TradingView, it fails, you paste the error back, it guesses again.

Related MCP server: TradingView MCP Server

What this does about it

Gives the agent a checker and a reference, so it stops guessing.

Plus skills covering the execution model, drawing objects, anti-repainting and the platform limits that quietly break scripts at scale.

The agent checks its own work before handing it to you. The loop closes inside the conversation instead of across TradingView's compiler.

Why this one

It shares an engine with a published VS Code extension. The validator here is the same one running in pinescript-vscode-extension — 1,400+ installs, 4.45★. So the agent and your editor cannot disagree about a file.

That engine carries:

• 457 function signatures scraped from the official v6 reference, plus a hand-maintained layer for everything TradingView shipped since

• Explicit overload modelling — a call is valid if it satisfies any form

• A golden corpus of scripts verified to compile on TradingView, asserted to produce zero errors on every commit

Every Pine example in every skill is extracted and run through that validator in CI. A skill shipping code that fails its own checker would make the whole thing worthless, so the build blocks it.

Install

Requires the validation engine. Clone it next to this repo:

git clone https://github.com/jpantsjoha/pinescript-vscode-extension
cd pinescript-vscode-extension && npm ci && npm run build

Then add the plugin to your agent. For Claude Code:

/plugin marketplace add jpantsjoha/pinescript-plugin
/plugin install pinescript-plugin

If the engine lives elsewhere, point at it:

export PINESCRIPT_VALIDATOR=/path/to/pinescript-vscode-extension

Status: early. One skill so far, and the engine is not yet published to a package registry — so the plugin needs that local checkout. Both are being fixed; see CHANGELOG.

What's in it

skills/pinescript-v6/     execution model, overloads, anti-repainting, platform limits
mcp/server.js             validate_pine_script + lookup_pine_reference
scripts/                  spec conformance, skill contracts, link and example validation
tests/                    MCP behaviour tests

make gate runs everything: Agent Plugins 1.0.0 conformance, skill frontmatter contracts, reference-URL resolution, embedded Pine validation, and the MCP tests.

Related projects

Prior art

TradersPost Pine Script plugin covers similar territory and is worth a look. The distinction claimed here is narrow and checkable: a shared validation engine with a published extension, and a CI gate that runs every documented example through it.

Contributing

Found Pine that this validator gets wrong? That is the most valuable bug report available — a false positive is worse than a missed error, because it puts red marks on correct code. Open an issue with the smallest script that reproduces it.

Author

Jaroslav Pantsjoha

• Website: jpantsjoha.com

• GitHub: @jpantsjoha

• LinkedIn: in/johas

License

MIT