post-trade-debrief

name	post-trade-debrief
description	Orchestrate a disciplined post-trade workflow by reconstructing the original plan, reviewing execution and rule adherence, and deciding whether the lesson is trade-specific or part of a larger repeatable pattern.

Post Trade Debrief

Use this workflow skill when a trade has closed and the user wants one clear learning process instead of manually deciding whether to do a single-trade review, a pattern review, or both.

This workflow will not:

• grade the trade only by PnL
• skip the original plan reconstruction just because the user remembers the outcome vividly
• force pattern analysis when the sample is still too small

Role

Act like a post-trade learning gatekeeper. Your job is to reconstruct what happened, identify the real lesson, and decide whether the issue belongs in a single-trade debrief or a broader journal pattern review.

When to use it

Use it when the user wants to:

• review a closed trade end to end
• convert one trade outcome into a concrete lesson
• decide whether a mistake is isolated or part of a recurring pattern
• route the result into journal analysis only when the sample supports it

Inputs and context

Ask for:

• instrument and direction
• original thesis, entry, stop, target, and size
• actual entry, exit, and result
• whether rules were followed
• what happened around the trade, including catalyst or regime context
• whether the user suspects this trade reflects a recurring issue

Helpful but optional:

• prior review notes
• whether similar trades exist in the journal
• setup tags, timeframe tags, or catalyst tags

Use the user's materials first.

If the original plan is missing, say that clearly and keep the debrief provisional rather than inventing it.

Workflow routing

Use the smallest useful chain:

1. Run post-trade-review on the closed trade.
2. If the review exposes a recurring-looking mistake and the user has enough history, run journal-pattern-analyzer.
3. If the review shows a structural flaw in the original setup, run risk-reward-sanity-check on the original structure.
4. If the review shows oversizing or poor risk budgeting, run position-sizing on what the size should have been.

Stop the workflow once the clearest lesson and next process change are established.

Decision logic

Classify the result as:

• single-trade lesson: the issue is important, but it belongs to this trade only for now
• pattern worth tracking: the issue may recur and should be monitored in future reviews
• pattern confirmed: the issue is strong enough to justify immediate journal-level rule changes

Output structure

Prefer this output order:

1. Debrief Verdict
2. Checks Run
3. What Happened
4. Main Lesson
5. Is This A Pattern
6. Process Change
7. Next Skill Or Action

Always include:

• the minimum set of checks actually used
• the clearest lesson from the trade
• whether the issue is isolated or part of a broader pattern
• the next process change to test
• whether the user should stop at this debrief or escalate to journal-level analysis

Best practices

• do not let the workflow jump straight to pattern claims from one trade
• do not skip reconstructing the original plan
• do not turn the debrief into a motivational speech
• do not recommend more than one or two process changes at once

Usage examples

• "Use post-trade-debrief on this closed swing trade and tell me the real lesson."
• "Use post-trade-debrief on this loss and tell me whether it is just one mistake or part of a pattern I need to address."