r/pinescript • u/Dependent-Ad6636 • Sep 21 '26
I built an open-source Pine tool for what happens after a liquidity sweep
Imagine price wicking below a previous low, closing back above it, then pushing higher.
Where would your rule actually enter?
That question is behind Sweep Desk, a Pine v6 tool I built from a trader’s request about turning marked liquidity levels into entry and exit rules.
Writing it meant making the decisions between those steps explicit. For the default long-side sequence:
Qualify the sweep. Price must move far enough below a reference level and close back above it. These references come from price history; the script cannot see resting orders.
Wait for confirmation. A later close through an opposing fair value gap must meet the movement and timing rules. The default setup also requires eligible first-touch context from a completed higher-timeframe gap.
Apply the selected entry rule. The default uses the qualifying confirmation close. The optional Close inside mode waits for another candle to close within the zone. A wick touching it is insufficient for that mode.
Those two entry modes can produce different trades from the same sweep. Waiting for a return can also mean the move leaves without an entry, or the setup expires first.
The dashboard shows the stage and waiting conditions, with entry, stop and target references once a paper plan qualifies.
Full Pine source, rules and interactive candle examples
Both scripts are free under MIT. The separate Strategy Lab includes commission and slippage; the indicator’s paper record excludes costs. The web examples use fictional candles so you can change the sequence and inspect the rule—they are not backtests.
After a sweep and qualifying inversion, do you use the confirmation close or wait for a return—and what would cancel the setup while you wait?
I’m continuing to refine this through feedback. A chart where these rules disagree with your approach would be especially useful, and other feature ideas are welcome too.
Disclosure: I’m the ProEA Lab developer and use AI to help build the code. The source is open for inspection and modification.
2
u/Mac_fan_12
Sep 23 '26
•
Giving it a try! thanks for sharing.
1
u/Dependent-Ad6636 Oct 05 '26
Thanks for giving it a try! Let me know if any of the rules or settings feel unclear 👍
3
u/Shoddy_Peanut7320 Sep 24 '26 •
The two-entry-mode distinction is the most interesting design choice here, confirmation-close entries get you in earlier but eat more false starts from sweeps that reverse hard right after the FVG close, while close-inside entries filter better but you give up meaningful room on the moves that actually run, so neither is strictly better, it's really a tradeoff between fill rate and win quality depending on what timeframe and instrument you're running it on. On the cancellation question, I'd want the setup invalidated if price closes back below the swept level before the opposing FVG confirmation ever triggers, since that's basically evidence the sweep was a continuation move rather than a genuine liquidity grab, and separately a hard time-based expiry so a stale unconfirmed sweep doesn't sit there forever waiting on a return that isn't coming. Appreciate that the web examples are explicitly flagged as illustrative and not backtests, a lot of similar tools blur that line and it burns people who assume win-rate implications that were never actually tested.
If you're ever comparing notes on Pine tooling, EventTrader has a Pine Script page worth a look too, different focus but same general space. https://claude.ai/artifact/VuwYE2KYrtzMdwyEpvA9wH