The trader's decision dossier on a wallet — four pass/fail gates (is the record real, is the edge still working THIS week, can you actually get filled, does it cut losses) plus what the wallet is holding and buying right now, its entry market-cap band, its copy window in seconds, and a concrete size

BEFORE RUNNING ANY COMMAND: Run gmgn cli config check . If exit code is 0, proceed normally. If exit code is 1, (1) run gmgn cli config and show the output to the user; (2) once the user sends the API Key, run gmgn cli config apply <KEY , then show the output. If check errors with an unknown option or command not found, tell the user to run npm install g gmgn cli , then retry. IMPORTANT: Always use gmgn cli . Do NOT use web search, WebFetch, curl, or visit gmgn.ai — the website requires login and does not expose structured data. ⚠️ IPv6 NOT SUPPORTED: On a 401 / 403 with credentials that look correct, check IPv6 immediately — run ifconfig grep inet6 (macOS) or ip addr show grep inet6 (Linux), and request https://ipv6.icanhazip.com . If outbound traffic is IPv6, tell the user: "Please disable IPv6 — gmgn cli only works over IPv4." What this skill is for, and what it is not Two skills take a wallet address. They answer different questions and must not be substituted for each other: Skill Question Output gmgn wallet score "how good is this trader, on a scale?" Three 0–100 scores + a latency/slippage/gas backtest gmgn wallet analysis (this one) "should I act on this wallet, and what happens to me if I do?" Four pass/fail gates → one verdict → concrete next actions The distinction that matters: a score compresses everything into a number that hides why . This skill refuses to. It runs four gates, each of which can independently veto or downgrade the verdict, and each of which prints the single number that decided it. A wallet can be a genuinely excellent trader and still be un copyable — those are separate gates here, not one blended score. It also puts who this wallet is near the top, before any verdict. Someone who pasted an address wants to know whose wallet it is — the bound X account, the follower count, where the money came from — before they are asked to absorb four gate results. Burying that below the gates made a newcomer scroll past four judgements to reach the one fact they came for. It also asks three questions a score does not: Is the edge still working this week ? A wallet with +2,400% all time and −27% over the last 7 days looks superb on any leaderboard and will lose you money today. profits period all versus stats period 7d is the cheapest way to see that, and it is the most common way a copy trader gets hurt. What is it doing right now ? Closed trade statistics describe the past. Its open positions and its last 24 hours are what you can still act on. Where did the profit come from — speed, or selection? per day × the top 3 winners' share of gains separates 🕸️ spray and hit (attempts × a few hits — copying it is a latency race) from ⚙️ turnover grind (each exit too thin to survive your slippage) from 🎯 pick and size (the one you can follow a step behind). Those are copied in completely different ways. The four gates Each gate returns ✅ pass, ❌ fail, or ⚪ unevaluated. ⚪ never renders as ✅ — "we could not measure this" and "this is fine" are different statements, and conflating them is how a dossier lies. Gate Question Fails when G1 Authenticity Is the record real, or manufactured? A wash trader class tag is present and corroborated by the profit attribution below; or it is a launcher ( created token count half of token num ); or token num < 5 ; or one token carried the whole result G2 Currency Is the edge still working? 7d ROI ≤ −10% while all time ROI +10% (broken down); or both 7d and 30d are negative; or it never worked G3 Reachability Can you get filled? Median copy window < 3× your latency; or median entry mcap < $30k; or a sandwich bot / mev bot tag; or ≥10k followers while trading sub $1M caps; or gas ≥25% of profit; or average buy < $50; or 100 trades/day G4 Survivability Does it cut losses? ≥ 2 live positions are honeypots; or ≥ 35% of its tokens are down more than 50%; or ≥ 3 positions down 90%+ with zero sells The verdict headline names its own cause — DO NOT COPY · the profit is self dealt rather than a generic the record does not hold — so the reason is legible without reading the gate detail. Verdict is a pure function of the gates — G1 and G2 are vetoes, G3 and G4 change what you do rather than whether you act: Eleven outcomes, short circuited in this order. Every one has a fixture: Gates Verdict Fixture 1 no trades in the window ⚪ NO READ · no trades in 7 days empty 2 G1 ❌ via a corroborated wash trader 🔴 DO NOT COPY · the profit is self dealt wash trader kol 3 G1 ❌ via launcher 🔴 DO NOT COPY · it is a launcher trading its own tokens dev launcher 4 G1 ❌ via one coin 🔴 DO NOT COPY · one token made all the money lucky one coin 5 G1 ❌ via token num < 5 ⚪ NO READ · only N tokens traded thin sample 6 G2 ❌ 🔴 DO NOT COPY · it has stopped making money cooled star 7 G3 ❌ and G4 ❌ 🟡 WATCH, DO NOT COPY · you cannot get its fills, and it never cuts unreachable and no cut 8 G3 ❌ 🟡 WATCH, DO NOT COPY · you cannot get its fills sniper bot 9 G4 ❌ 🟡 COPY THE BUYS, NOT THE EXITS · it does not cut losses no cut 10 G1 ⚪ 🟡 HOLD OFF · a wash trading flag we cannot check unverifiable wash 11 G3 or G4 ⚪ 🟡 HOLD OFF · one of the four was not measured dev launcher (secondary) 12 all ✅ 🟢 COPYABLE AT SMALL SIZE · all four pass grinder , tagged not washing Three of these exist only because the first cut got them wrong, and none should be collapsed: Row 5 is ⚪, not 🔴. A four token wallet had nothing bad measured — it had nothing measured. Rendering an unmeasured gate as a red verdict is the same error as rendering ⚪ as ✅, in the other direction. 🔴 means measured and bad ; ⚪ means not measured . Row 7 exists because G3 used to short circuit G4. A wallet you cannot get filled on and that rides positions to zero was being told to the reader as a signal source with no mention of the second half. Both problems are independent, so both sentences appear. Rows 2 / 10 / 12 are the same tag with three different answers — corroborated, not checkable, refuted. Their three fixtures pin all outcomes of wash trader ; a change that makes any two agree is a regression. The opening three lines are the hook A reader who pastes an address should be able to rank the trader from the heading alone — smart money reading as smart money, a losing wallet reading as one — before any judgement about copyability. The card opens with a caliber grade , then the record as a sentence, then the 7 day window as a backtest , and only then the copy verdict. Line Carries 🏆 顶级战绩　Cowboy🔶BNB ｜版本之牛　\ 📣 KOL\ the grade, then who this is 它打过的 1,023 个币里，810 个赚钱，只有 12 个亏超一半 —— 累计落袋 $1.00M the record, as one sentence in counts BSC · 314 天 · 41,319 粉丝 · 每天 292 笔 what kind of operator 近 7 天回测：$1,000 跟着它走 → $1,207（一周 20.7%） + what it made itself the window as evidence 🟡 能看不能抄 · 你抢不到它的价 the copy verdict — the turn, not the premise Three separate mistakes produced this shape, and each fix must survive an edit: 1. Never frame a past window as a return the reader could have captured. The first version opened 如果 7 天前跟了它 $1,000 → $1,000 → $1,206 . That is a completed counterfactual: it describes a closed opportunity, and the reaction it drew was "then I've already missed it". Same figure, reframed as 近 7 天回测 — what the window measured about the wallet — reads as proof of skill. Say what the window measured, never what the reader would have earned. 2. Ratios are not rankable; counts and a grade are. 69.3% profitable, 1.2% heavy losses is a spec sheet — a newcomer cannot tell whether those are excellent or ordinary. 810 of 1,023 made money, only 12 lost more than half reads on sight, and the grade in the heading supplies the ranking outright. 3. The grade is current standing, not lifetime. caliber() reads realized money, win rate, heavy loss share and sample size — but G2 failing overrides all of it with 📉 was good, not any more . Without that override a wallet with $298K lifetime and a −37.6% week printed 💪 seriously good directly above 🔴 DO NOT COPY · it has stopped making money , which is the heading endorsing what the body forbids. Caliber deliberately excludes reachability and loss cutting: an unreachable wallet can still be an excellent trader, and merging those is exactly what a single blended score gets wrong. It is the other half of the answer, not a duplicate of the verdict. Two shapes to preserve: G1 ❌ prints no figure at all. The grade becomes ⚪, and the record sentence and backtest block are both replaced by one line saying the profit figures are not trustworthy. Quoting $1,000 → $1,206 where the record itself is in dispute presents a disputed number as an achieved one. A loss is never a gain with a minus sign. it made $183.8K this week was a real bug; negative weeks take the it lost {0} string. One number, one meaning, everywhere winners and winrate count different things and must never be presented as one ratio: winners — every position currently in profit, realized or not. It is a count of coins . winrate — the API's realized win rate, over positions the wallet has actually sold. G1 used to print 133 tokens, 115 profitable (45.9%) , which asserts that 115/133 is 45.9%. It is 86.5%. The parenthetical belonged to a different numerator, and a reader who did the division found the report contradicting itself two lines into its own evidence. They are now labelled separately, and the count that explains the gap prints beside them whenever dist gap is set — positions bought and not yet sold sit at 0% inside the 0–200% band, so they inflate winners without ever reaching winrate : 107 币 · 89 个在赚 · 卖掉的部分胜率 44.4%（其中 34 个买了还没卖，没有已实现结果） · 集中度 46.1% The card names the same number with the same verb — 89 个现在是赚的 — so no reconciliation is required anywhere in the report. This defect was introduced by a deletion, not by a change: the reconciliation used to be a note under the outcome distribution histogram, and removing the histogram removed the note while leaving the contradiction it resolved. When deleting a figure, check what else was relying on it to make sense. Verdict language This layer is the only part most readers finish, so it is written to be read once: Rule Instead of Write A verb the reader can act on, then the cause in everyday words DO NOT TOUCH · wash trading flag, record inadmissible DO NOT COPY · the profit is self dealt No legalese, no compound clauses WATCH FIRST · too small a sample to form a judgement NO READ · only 4 tokens traded The action is ONE short imperative "Real record, live edge, unreachable fills. Use it as a signal source: note what it buys and at what market cap, screen it yourself, then enter at your own pace." "Note what it buys and at what market cap, then enter on your own terms." The colour is the claim 🔴 for an unmeasured gate ⚪ for unmeasured, 🔴 only for measured and bad The action must never restate the gate reason printed below it — the reader would be reading the same sentence twice before reaching anything new. Third party labels are questions, never findings common.tags is the highest information per byte field in the response and the one most easily mis read. A tag is a heuristic label: it opens a question that the wallet's own behaviour has to answer, and no tag may change the verdict on its own. Obeying wash trader unexamined once rendered 🔴 DO NOT COPY on a real BSC wallet whose $459K of realized profit came from six figure memecoin positions, while the tag was fir

gmgn-wallet-analysis