pinescript-plugin

Your agent writes Pine Script it cannot check. This gives it a checker.

Eight of these checks catch code that compiles perfectly and still loses money.

Every AI Pine Script tool on the market ships advice. None of them can verify a single line they produce. That gap is the whole reason this exists.

The problem, precisely

Ask any coding agent for a TradingView indicator. You get code that 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 is `color`
plotshape(cond, shape=shape.triangleup)                   // it is `style=`
v = math.clamp(x, 0, 1)                                   // no such function
b = box.new(left=1, top=2, right=3, bottom=4, textalign=text.align_left)

Three properties of Pine make this near-certain:

1. Parameter names are not guessable. label.new takes textalign. box.new takes text_halign. Nothing about either 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 seen one will insist the other is wrong.

3. The language moves quarterly, in both directions. TradingView added request.footprint() and multiline strings, then removed the wrapped-line indentation rules in December 2025. Training data goes stale coming and going.

Sparse training data is the root cause, and TradingView say so plainly: the corpus for Python is large enough to generate working code, and for Pine it is not.

Related MCP server: TradingView MCP Server

The expensive half nobody addresses

Compile errors cost a minute. The real damage is code that compiles and is still wrong: a repainting signal, a ta.* call inside a conditional quietly corrupting its own history, a strategy that opens positions and never closes them.

"One overlooked mistake, like a repainting signal or scope error, can invalidate months of backtesting." — PickMyTrade

Prose cannot fix that class of bug, because the author already believes the code is right. Detection can. Eight checks ship today:

Considered one and decided it is fine? Silence it:

d = request.security(syminfo.tickerid, "D", close)   // pine-ignore: S1

Syntactic errors are never suppressible. A compile failure is a fact, not a judgement.

What you get

Why trust it

The engine is pinescript-v6-validator, the same code running inside a VS Code extension with 1,400+ installs at 4.45 stars. Your agent and your editor read from one implementation, so they cannot disagree about a file.

Behind it: 457 function signatures from the official reference, a hand-maintained layer for everything TradingView shipped since, explicit overload modelling, and a golden corpus proven able to fail. Reintroduce a fixed bug and the build goes red.

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 be worse than no skill, so the build blocks it.

Plugin, or VS Code extension?

Both. The distinction matters, because getting it wrong is what makes two tools contradict each other.

        pinescript-v6-validator  (npm)     detection lives here, once
                     |
        +------------+------------+
        v                         v
  VS Code extension          this plugin
  surface: humans            surface: agents
  squiggles, hover           MCP, skills, hook

A check is written once, in the engine. The extension renders it as a squiggle. This plugin returns it to the model. Neither reimplements it. The moment the same rule exists twice they drift, and a drifted rule means your agent and your editor disagree about the same file.

Skills are plugin-only. Prose is useless in an editor and is the whole point for an agent. Editor affordances such as formatting and go-to-definition stay in the extension.

Install

One plugin, four coding assistants. Skills live in skills/; each harness reads its own manifest. The validation engine comes from pinescript-v6-validator on npm — no separate checkout required.

Claude Code

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

Antigravity (Gemini)

agy plugin install https://github.com/jpantsjoha/pinescript-plugin

Codex

codex plugin marketplace add https://github.com/jpantsjoha/pinescript-plugin
codex plugin add pinescript-plugin@pinescript-plugin-marketplace

Codex reads AGENTS.md as its always-on contract and discovers skills under .agents/skills/.

Kimi Code

Kimi reads .kimi-plugin/plugin.json. Point it at the skills directly:

git clone https://github.com/jpantsjoha/pinescript-plugin
kimi --skills-dir ./pinescript-plugin/skills

Verify the install

Ask your agent to validate something deliberately wrong:

//@version=6
indicator("check")
l = line.new(x1=1, y1=2, x2=3, y2=4, colour=color.red)

You should get No parameter named 'colour' in 'line.new'. If instead you are told the script is fine, the MCP server is not connected — check your harness's MCP configuration.

Harness support

Every row below was verified by installing and running the tools, not by reading a manifest.

Antigravity auditing a script through the plugin, and finding the repainting the author did not:

Two things are worth noticing. The model calls the plugin's own validatePineScript rather than reasoning about the code from memory — the verdict comes from the engine, not from the model's recollection of Pine. And it does not paraphrase the warning: it names the check, states the mechanism (reading a still-forming higher-timeframe bar), and gives the specific edit.

That is the difference between a skill that explains a diagnostic and one that merely mentions it.

Working on the plugin itself

git clone https://github.com/jpantsjoha/pinescript-plugin
cd pinescript-plugin && npm install && make hooks
make gate    # spec · packaging · skills · links · Pine examples · MCP tests

What's in it

skills/pinescript-v6/          execution model, overloads, anti-repainting, limits
skills/pinescript-validation/  every diagnostic class and its deterministic fix
skills/pinescript-indicator/   validated scaffolds: overlay, oscillator, drawings
skills/pinescript-strategy/    entries, exits, sizing, and the repainting traps
mcp/server.js                  validate_pine_script + lookup_pine_reference
hooks/                         validates every .pine file the agent edits
scripts/                       spec, packaging, skill, link and example validation
tests/                         MCP behaviour tests

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

What this does not do yet

Stating it plainly beats you finding out.

• Constant and built-in-variable NAMES are not checked. shape.trianglup, color.grene and plot.style_circlez validate clean here and fail on TradingView. Only parameter names are checked, never the values. lookup_pine_reference covers functions only, so a found: false for barstate.islast means "not a function", not "not real".

• One check is specified but not built. S4 (assignment inside and/or) is a heuristic about intent. Until its false-positive rate measures at zero it stays out. The related shape — a ta.* call on the right of and/or, which v6 short-circuits into a conditional call — escapes S2 for the same reason.

• Re-declaring a name with = is a TradingView error and passes here.

• No type inference. A series value passed where simple is required compiles here and fails on TradingView. Fixing that needs an AST the engine does not have.

• Hooks work in Claude Code only. Antigravity, Codex and Kimi get the skills and the MCP tools. Their harnesses do not load the hook.

• A clean validation is not proof the script is right. It means no known defect matched. Backtest assumptions, unconfirmed-bar entries and position sizing remain yours to check.

Related projects

Prior art

TradersPost/pinescript-agents covers similar ground with seven skills and is worth a look. double232/pinescript-skill is one deep skill with a good catalogue of hard language constraints.

The claim here is narrow and checkable. Both are prose. Neither can verify a line of the Pine it produces. This ships the checker.

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 and teaches people to ignore the tool. Open an issue with the smallest script that reproduces it.

Author

Jaroslav Pantsjoha

• Website: jpantsjoha.com

• GitHub: @jpantsjoha

• LinkedIn: in/johas

License

MIT