Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when writing a swing/intraday breakout strategy on Superior Trade — anything described as breakout, momentum, trend following, 12-hour high, range expansion, riding new highs, Donchian breakout. Note this template was unprofitable in our reference backtest (long-only in a -13% market); explain regime sensitivity to the user.
.claude/skills/superior-trade-breakout/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 136% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 34% | 0% |
| case-12 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 29% | 0% |
| case-20 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 80% | 0% |
| case-23 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 134% | 0% |
A user asks for "breakout", "momentum", "trend following", "buy new highs", "Donchian breakout", "range expansion". Single or multi-pair, hour-scale, with a trailing stop.
The reference backtest was unprofitable (36% WR, −0.95% PnL) on BTC/USDC:USDC 1h Jan-May 2026 — but BTC fell −13% in that window. Long-only breakouts in a downtrend are structurally a losing setup. The strategy is correct; the regime was wrong.
Two practical paths to make this work:
close > ema_200 on the higher timeframe).| Window | BTC/USDC:USDC 1h, 2026-01-01 → 2026-05-01 (BTC −13%) | |---|---| | Trades | 64 | | Win rate | 36% | | Wallet PnL | −0.95% | | Backtest ID | 01kqypw5bqsaezpgm8pxcrpvyb |
Trailing stop kept losses small per trade, but the entry signal fired into too many failed breakouts in a downtrend. Re-run on Q4 2025 or a trending alt to see the strategy in its native regime.
pythonfrom freqtrade.strategy import IStrategy import pandas as pd import talib.abstract as ta class MomentumBreakoutStrategy(IStrategy): minimal_roi = {"0": 100.0} # let trailing stop manage exits stoploss = -0.05 trailing_stop = True trailing_stop_positive = 0.015 trailing_stop_positive_offset = 0.025 trailing_only_offset_is_reached = True timeframe = "1h" process_only_new_candles = True startup_candle_count = 30 can_short = False def populate_indicators(self, dataframe: pd.DataFrame, metadata: dict) -> pd.DataFrame: dataframe["high_12h"] = dataframe["high"].rolling(12).max().shift(1) dataframe["low_6h"] = dataframe["low"].rolling(6).min().shift(1) dataframe["vol_avg20"] = dataframe["volume"].rolling(20).mean() dataframe["atr_14"] = ta.ATR(dataframe, timeperiod=14) return dataframe def populate_entry_trend(self, dataframe: pd.DataFrame, metadata: dict) -> pd.DataFrame: # Break the prior 12h high on above-average volume. dataframe.loc[ (dataframe["close"] > dataframe["high_12h"]) & (dataframe["volume"] > dataframe["vol_avg20"]), "enter_long", ] = 1 return dataframe def populate_exit_trend(self, dataframe: pd.DataFrame, metadata: dict) -> pd.DataFrame: # Break the prior 6h low → exit (momentum failed). dataframe.loc[(dataframe["close"] < dataframe["low_6h"]), "exit_long"] = 1 return dataframe
json{ "exchange": { "name": "hyperliquid", "pair_whitelist": ["BTC/USDC:USDC"] }, "stake_currency": "USDC", "stake_amount": 100, "timeframe": "1h", "max_open_trades": 1, "stoploss": -0.05, "minimal_roi": { "0": 100.0 }, "trading_mode": "futures", "margin_mode": "cross", "trailing_stop": true, "trailing_stop_positive": 0.015, "trailing_stop_positive_offset": 0.025, "trailing_only_offset_is_reached": true, "entry_pricing": { "price_side": "same" }, "exit_pricing": { "price_side": "same" }, "pairlists": [{ "method": "StaticPairList" }] }
The trailing-stop block is what makes this template worth keeping — it locks in profits once a breakout extends past +2.5%, then trails 1.5% behind.
| Knob | Effect | |---|---| | 12 (rolling high length) | Shorter (6) → more entries, lower-quality breakouts. Longer (24) → fewer, higher-conviction. | | volume > vol_avg20 | Stricter (> vol_avg20 × 1.5) → only volume-confirmed breakouts. | | trailing_stop_positive_offset (0.025) | Higher → trailing stop activates later, gives more room. Lower → locks in earlier, exits more often. | | trailing_stop_positive (0.015) | Tighter trail → exits closer to highs, more stops out. | | low_6h exit | Shorter window → faster invalidation. Longer → patience but bigger giveback. |
1d close > 1d ema_50. Removes trades in clear downtrends (would have killed most of the −0.95% in the reference).StaticPairList with VolumePairList filtered to top 30 by 24h volume. Diversifies regime risk.process_only_new_candles = False. Default True is correct here; setting it false fires on every tick during backtest dry-run and triple-counts entries.minimal_roi and trailing stop. Setting minimal_roi: { "0": 0.05 } exits at +5% before the trailing stop activates at +2.5% offset. Use {"0": 100.0} and let the trailing stop run.startup_candle_count too small for ATR-14. ATR needs 14 bars of warmup; the default 30 is fine. If you switch to ATR-100, bump startup to 100+.docs/standard-strategies-audit.md, backtest 01kqypw5bqsaezpgm8pxcrpvyb| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-06 | pass→fail | 24,273 | 22,572 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,859 | 5,344 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 25,952 | 16,899 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,872 | 4,277 | -12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 26,457 | 18,054 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,207 | 4,600 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 17,748 | 13,779 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,251 | 4,586 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 16,594 | 20,628 | +24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,978 | 4,505 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 54,740 | 35,251 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,368 | 6,585 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 6,931 | 3,942 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,030 | 2,429 | +136% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→fail | 13,077 | 11,610 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,032 | 3,246 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 19,991 | 12,242 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,778 | 3,725 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 9,479 | 7,725 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,708 | 2,757 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 19,390 | 17,169 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,530 | 4,759 | +88% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 18,028 | 16,261 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,985 | 3,855 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 24,048 | 18,115 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,451 | 4,357 | +26% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | 7,926 | 6,513 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,008 | 2,841 | +182% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 16,354 | 12,369 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,261 | 3,796 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 10,491 | 7,009 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,529 | 2,707 | +77% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 15,754 | 11,135 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,178 | 3,389 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 19,138 | 23,858 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,140 | 5,444 | +73% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 10,935 | 13,277 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,777 | 3,493 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 9,246 | 3,244 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,192 | 2,141 | +80% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 121,673 | 5,452 | -96% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,718 | 2,536 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 18,655 | 14,338 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,739 | 3,971 | +45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→pass | 5,891 | 1,810 | -69% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 872 | 2,037 | +134% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +13 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.