Regimen

io.github.RaYYeR220Published by GitHub account RaYYeR220v1.0.0Updated Oct 24, 2026

Tells you whether a trading strategy's edge is distinguishable from luck.

VerifiedStreamable HTTPWeb executableFinanceData & Analytics

Overview

AI-generated overview

Regimen is a remote MCP server that tests whether a trading strategy's measured edge is distinguishable from luck and which market conditions it holds in.

What you can do
Evaluate a strategy's equity curve for statistical significance, returning the Probabilistic Sharpe Ratio, a bootstrap confidence interval and the minimum track record length needed for significance, with an optional Deflated Sharpe correction when trial Sharpes are supplied. Break returns down by market conditions such as volatility, funding, open interest, positioning, sentiment and trend state, with a permutation test per factor. Run the engine against known-answer controls to show where its verdicts are trustworthy. List the available market-condition factors, their units, upstream source and bucketing.
When to use it
Use it when reviewing a backtest or published track record and you want to know whether the reported Sharpe or win rate is more than a short, skewed sample, or when you want to see which market regimes a strategy's returns are concentrated in.
Requirements
A remote Streamable HTTP endpoint; no authentication is needed for the inline source, where you supply the equity curve yourself. Analysing an OlaXBT Nexus strategy needs a Nexus API key, supplied per request in the x-nexus-key header or via the NEXUS_DEMO_KEY environment variable. Network access to the service and its upstream data source is required.
Before you install
The service is read-only and does not trade, hold funds or sign anything. A Nexus API key sent in the x-nexus-key header is read per request and not persisted or logged, but it is still a credential you are handing to a third-party service. The published evaluation is against synthetic strategies and does not show profitability; the README reports that three of six evaluation targets are currently missed.

Installation

In SourceWeft

  1. Open Regimen in the dashboard and add it to a workspace.
  2. Enable the server for the chats that should use its tools.

Web executable via Streamable HTTP. Remote servers run from the web runtime once configured in a workspace.

Use with an agent

Paste this prompt into Claude Code, Codex, Cursor or another agent — or into SourceWeft chat. The agent reads this server's install guide, shows you its publisher, endpoint and sign-in, and adds it to your client once you agree. Keys never go into a command.

Read https://sourceweft.com/mcp/io.github.RaYYeR220%2Fregimen/install.md and connect the MCP server it describes to my client. Before changing any config, show me its publisher, endpoint and sign-in method and wait for my OK. Never put an API key in a command or in a file I would commit; ask me where it should come from.

Read the install guide the agent follows

Other MCP clients

Add this to your client's mcpServers config.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "regimen": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://regimen-nu.vercel.app/mcp"
    }
  }
}

README

Regimen

A Sharpe ratio is an estimate. Regimen tells you whether it is a fact.

Regimen takes a trading strategy's equity curve and answers two questions an aggregate performance number cannot: is the measured edge distinguishable from luck, and in which market conditions does it actually hold?

It is built for agents as much as for people. Everything is available over a REST API and over MCP, and the most common answer it gives is that the evidence is too thin to support the claim being made. That is the product, not a failure mode.


The problem

A strategy publishes a Sharpe ratio of 2.4 over six weeks and a 58% win rate over 40 trades. Both numbers are real. Neither is evidence.

A Sharpe ratio computed from a short, skewed, fat-tailed sample carries an error bar wide enough to swallow the claim. Forty trades cannot distinguish a 58% edge from a coin. And once a strategy has been re-tuned twenty times, the best configuration looks good for the same reason the tallest of twenty random people is tall.

This is not a niche statistical objection — it is the single most common way capital is lost to a backtest. The mathematics for handling it has existed since 2012 and is almost never applied, because it requires more than dividing a mean by a standard deviation.

Here is real output from the live service, on a curve with an annualised Sharpe of 3.72:

verdict      weakconfidence   92.3% that the true Sharpe exceeds 095% interval [-0.033, +0.462]        zero is still insidetrack record 60 periods; 78 needed for significance at 95%

A dashboard would have printed 3.72 and stopped.

What it does

1. Significance. The Probabilistic Sharpe Ratio — the probability the true Sharpe exceeds a benchmark given the sample's length, skewness and kurtosis. The Minimum Track Record Length — how many periods would be needed before the claim could be made at all. The Deflated Sharpe Ratio — the same statement corrected for how many configurations were tried first. A stationary-bootstrap confidence interval that preserves serial dependence.

2. Regime attribution. Each period's return is joined to the market conditions that held on that UTC date — volatility, funding, open interest, positioning, sentiment, trend state — read point-in-time, so nothing in a bucket could only have been known afterwards. Every factor carries a permutation test: the observed dispersion of performance across buckets is compared against the dispersion produced by randomly reshuffling the regime labels, because slicing a return series eight ways guarantees a flattering subset. Without that p-value a regime map is a data-mining machine.

3. Self-attack. Every analysis can be run against controls whose answer is known in advance: the strategy's own returns with the mean removed (true Sharpe exactly zero, so a correct engine must grade it near 50%), and a simulated population of edgeless strategies matched for length and volatility, so the real result can be placed as a percentile against pure luck. The result is published, including when a control fails.

4. Divergence check. Where a source publishes its own figures, Regimen recomputes them from the equity curve and reports the difference. Differing conventions explain most gaps, but a user quoting a dashboard deserves to know when the curve underneath says otherwise.

Try it, with no credentials

bash
curl -s https://regimen-nu.vercel.app/api/v1/evaluate \  -H 'content-type: application/json' \  -d '{    "selector": {      "source": "inline",      "trackRecord": {        "label": "demo",        "equity": [          {"t": "2026-06-01", "equity": 10000}, {"t": "2026-06-02", "equity": 10180},          {"t": "2026-06-03", "equity": 10090}, {"t": "2026-06-04", "equity": 10310},          {"t": "2026-06-05", "equity": 10240}, {"t": "2026-06-06", "equity": 10450}        ]      }    }  }'

That curve is deliberately too short, and Regimen says so rather than producing a number. verification/README.md has a full-length example that produces a graded verdict, plus the health and deployment-proof checks.

Two surfaces, one engine

REST

MethodPathWhat it answers
POST/api/v1/evaluateIs this track record distinguishable from luck?
POST/api/v1/regime-mapWhich market conditions is the edge concentrated in?
POST/api/v1/self-attackWhy should I believe the verdict?
GET/api/v1/statusUpstream reachability, cache occupancy, demo-key availability.
GET/api/v1/openapi.jsonThe machine-readable contract.
GET/api/healthLiveness and the exact build commit.

Every response is { data, meta } or { error, meta }, where meta carries a request id, the build commit, and which credential mode served the request. Errors carry a stable machine-readable code, a retryable flag, and a remedy written to be actionable by an agent rather than a human reading a stack trace.

MCP

Connect any MCP client to https://regimen-nu.vercel.app/mcp over Streamable HTTP. No authentication is needed for the inline source. For a client configured by file:

json
{ "mcpServers": { "regimen": { "url": "https://regimen-nu.vercel.app/mcp" } } }

To inspect it interactively: npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector and point it at the same URL.

Tools — regimen_evaluate_track_record, regimen_regime_map, regimen_self_attack, regimen_describe_factors. Each advertises an outputSchema and returns validated structuredContent; each is annotated readOnlyHint because nothing here writes, trades or signs; each takes a detail switch so an agent can ask for the verdict and its reasons rather than every bucket.

Resources — regimen://methodology (the statistics, in full), regimen://evidence-tiers (the exact grading thresholds), and the template regimen://factor/{key}, whose key argument supports completion/complete.

Prompt — validate_strategy, the full review in the right order, with instructions not to lead with the annualised Sharpe.

Architecture

                    REST  /api/v1/*            MCP  /mcp                          │                        │                          └────────────┬───────────┘                                       │                            engine/  significance · regime · self-attack                                       │                            stats/   PSR · DSR · MinTRL · bootstrap ·                                     conditional attribution · Wilson                                       │                            sources/ ── adapter interface ──┐                                       │                     │                              olaxbt-nexus              inline                          (18 tools, point-in-time)  (bring your own curve)

The engine is written against a domain model — a track record, a regime series — and never against a vendor's response shape. A data source is a thin adapter that produces those two things. That is why the same analysis serves an OlaXBT Nexus strategy and a curve pasted in from a spreadsheet, and why adding a venue is an adapter rather than a rewrite.

OlaXBT Nexus is the live data source. The adapter reads the strategy's equity curve, trades and published metrics, and reads eight market-condition factors per date with an explicit as_of, which is what makes the regime attribution free of lookahead. Rate limiting and caching live in the client, not at call sites: a Builder-tier key allows 80 requests a minute and a regime map wants hundreds of point-in-time reads, so calls are paced under a token bucket and every immutable past-dated read is cached.

Testing

bash
pnpm test          # the full suitepnpm typecheck     # strict, with noUncheckedIndexedAccesspnpm eval          # the graded evaluation; writes EVAL.md

The statistics core carries 370 tests. Known-answer cases for PSR, MinTRL, the Deflated Sharpe Ratio, skewness, kurtosis, Wilson intervals and drawdown were generated independently of this implementation and carry their arithmetic in a comment. A negative-control test across 20 seeds confirms a zero-mean series clears 95% confidence on 2 of 20 runs — the nominal size — while the matching positive-mean series clears it on 20 of 20.

What the evaluation found

EVAL.md is a pre-registered graded evaluation: 82 synthetic strategies with known ground truth, scored on false-positive rate, power, correct refusals on degenerate input, calibration, and regime detection. The suite and its targets were fixed before the engine was ever run against them.

It currently fails three of its six targets, and the failures are published rather than tuned away. They are worth reading, because they are the honest limits of the method:

  • False positives 5.6% (2/36), target ≤5%. Both failures are the same mechanism: a negatively-skewed return distribution on a short window whose crash component simply has not arrived yet. The non-normality correction is driven by the sample third and fourth moments, and at 40–60 observations those carry almost no information — so the exact pattern the correction exists to catch ("sells volatility, hasn't blown up yet") is the one it walks into. The engine now says so explicitly in its own reasoning whenever a sample is too short for those moments to mean anything. Note that 2 of 36 is also within Monte Carlo noise of the nominal 5%; the mechanism is the finding, not the overshoot.
  • Restraint 66.7% (10/15), target ≥90%. In five cases a genuine but unprovable edge was graded as proven, because luck pushed the observed Sharpe far above the true one. The engine is directionally right in all five and still granting more confidence than the sample size supports.
  • Regime detection 25% (1/4) at p ≤ 0.05, target ≥75%. The evaluation caught a real design flaw here: the permutation test originally ran on the best-minus-worst Sharpe spread, which sees only two buckets and inflates with the number of buckets. On a planted effect it could not separate signal from the null at all — planted spread 0.493 against a null control's 0.491. It was replaced with an observation-weighted between-bucket variance, which moved the planted cases' p-values from 0.022/0.073/0.092/0.229 to 0.010/0.054/0.069/0.275 while the unplanted controls stayed quiet (0.18–0.91). That is a material improvement and still short of the target, so the target stands as missed.

Regime false positives are 0/4 and degenerate inputs are refused 8/8.

MCP conformance

npx @modelcontextprotocol/conformance@alpha server --url <url>

Against a local build: 36 checks pass, 23 fail. Passing: protocol negotiation, ping, tools/list, resources/list, prompts/list, and DNS-rebinding protection. Every failure is a scenario that exercises the suite's own reference-server fixtures — named test tools, sampling, logging, image and audio content, resource subscriptions — none of which Regimen implements. The raw counts are printed here rather than summarised as a pass, because a conformance claim that hides its denominator is worth nothing.

Note that the DNS-rebinding scenario reports failure against any non-localhost URL by construction (it states so in its own description), so it is meaningful only when run against a local build.

Running locally

bash
pnpm installpnpm dev        # http://localhost:3000

No credentials are needed for the inline source. To analyse an OlaXBT Nexus strategy, supply a key per request in the x-nexus-key header, or set one in the environment.

VariableRequiredWhat it does
NEXUS_DEMO_KEYnoAn OlaXBT Nexus API key used when a caller supplies none, so a reviewer can exercise the Nexus-backed endpoints without an account. Responses report meta.mode: "demo" when it is in use.
REVIEW_COMMITnoOverrides the commit reported by /api/health. Only needed when self-hosting outside a git-aware build; otherwise the platform's build metadata is used, which is what keeps the reported commit honest.

Keys are read per request, never persisted, and never logged. Where a key must be identified — for rate limiting and cache partitioning — only a non-reversible fingerprint is used.

Honest limits

  • A regime map reads at most 45 dates per request. Each date costs five point-in-time reads and the upstream allows 80 a minute. Past dates are immutable and cached, so repeating the call widens coverage; a single request will not.
  • Upstream point-in-time coverage ends before the present. Conditions for very recent dates may be unavailable, and those periods are reported as unmatched rather than filled in.
  • The Deflated Sharpe Ratio only appears when trial Sharpes are supplied. Regimen cannot know how many configurations you tried, and it will not guess — it says the ratio was not computed and why.
  • Tercile bucket edges depend on the sample. Factors with a conventional scale use edges fixed in advance; the rest are split into terciles of their own observed range, which is disclosed per factor.
  • Annualised figures are approximations when equity points are unevenly spaced. Regimen infers the period from the median spacing, flags irregularity, and grades on per-period figures rather than annualised ones.
  • The evaluation is modelled, not live. It measures the engine against synthetic strategies with known truth. It does not demonstrate profitability of anything.

Not in scope

Regimen does not trade, hold funds, custody keys, or sign anything. It does not inspect smart contracts, score wallets or transactions, detect scams, or perform security, audit or compliance analysis of any kind. It reads a track record and reports what the evidence supports.

License

MIT — see LICENSE.

Source: README.md at commit c5c3a0b

Tools

4

regimen_describe_factors

Describe regime factors

List the market-condition factors Regimen slices performance by, with units, the upstream operation each is read from, and how it is bucketed. Call this when you need to know which factor keys exist or how to explain a bucket to a user. Takes no arguments, reaches no network, never changes.

Takes no parameters.

regimen_evaluate_track_record

Evaluate a track record

Answer whether a trading strategy’s measured performance is distinguishable from luck. Returns the Probabilistic Sharpe Ratio (the probability the true Sharpe beats a benchmark, corrected for sample length, skew and fat tails), a bootstrap confidence interval, and the Minimum Track Record Length — how long the record would have to run before the claim could be made at all. Use this whenever someone quotes a Sharpe ratio, a win rate or a return and you need to know whether the number means anything. It will frequently say the evidence is too thin; that is the intended answer, not a failure.

ParametersdetailselectorrequiredconfidencetrialSharpesbenchmarkSharpe

regimen_regime_map

Map performance to market regimes

Break a strategy’s returns down by the market conditions that held on each date — volatility, funding, open interest, positioning, sentiment, trend state — and report performance per bucket. Each factor also gets a permutation test: the observed best-to-worst spread is compared against spreads produced by randomly reshuffling the regime labels, so a flattering subset cannot pass itself off as a regime effect. Use this after regimen_evaluate_track_record when you need to know WHERE an edge comes from, or whether it is a bet on conditions that could end.

ParametersdetailmaxDatesselectorrequiredminSample

regimen_self_attack

Attack the verdict

Run Regimen’s own analysis against controls whose answer is known in advance: the strategy’s returns with the edge mathematically removed, and a simulated population of strategies with no edge at all. Returns whether the engine correctly found nothing in them, and where the real strategy’s confidence sits among pure-luck strategies of the same length and volatility. Use this when a user is entitled to ask why they should believe the verdict, or before quoting a result as evidence.

Parametersselectorrequiredsimulations

Version history

1
  1. v1.0.0LatestSep 19, 2026

Score

100% of the applicable checks met

How complete this listing is, computed from the registry entry, the endpoint and public sources. Not a rating of the server and not a statement that it is safe or working today: reachability is a dated check, and no installs or reviews go into the score.

  • Reached in the last 30 daysRequired25 pts
  • Auth declaredRequired10 pts
  • Tools listedRequired15 pts
  • DescriptionRequired15 pts
  • Logo10 pts
  • Documentation15 pts
  • License10 pts