Risk Rule Adherence

Whether each trade obeyed the risk rules in its own playbook — risk per trade, minimum R:R, max hold. A check is skipped, not failed, when the trade lacks the figure it needs. In Limbix, risk rule adherence is the share of those checks your playbook-linked trades passed over the last 30 days.

How it's calculated#

$$\text{Risk Rule Adherence} = \operatorname{round}\left(\frac{\text{checks passed}}{\text{checks that could be applied}} \times 100\right)$$

Checks

Up to three per playbook-linked trade: risk cap, minimum R:R, max hold.

Could be applied

The rule exists and the trade has the figure the rule needs. Otherwise the check is skipped, not failed.

Every trade in the last 30 days that is linked to a playbook gets up to three checks:

The score is passed checks ÷ applicable checks × 100, rounded.

Every cap that applies, applies. Your account-level cap comes from your limit chain: a prop firm's rule first, then your Max risk per trade in Settings › NEX. The playbook has its own. The stricter of the two is the one you're checked against. A trader under a prop firm's 0.5% cap who wrote 2% into a playbook isn't compliant at 2%.

A trade linked to several playbooks is checked once per rule, against the strictest version of each: the lowest risk cap, the highest minimum R:R and the shortest max hold. Tagging a second playbook onto a trade can't loosen a rule.

Percent caps become money first. A cap in % is converted to account currency using your account size, then compared with the trade's risk amount. A cap in currency needs no account size at all.

Not scored: Max position size. The playbook still has the field, but it compares quantity × entry price with account size. For futures and forex that measures the size of the contract, not your risk. One index future or one standard FX lot fails it on almost any retail account. The risk cap asks the meaningful version of the question. Stop method, stop value and profit target aren't scored here either.

There is no tolerance inside this component: each check passes or fails against the rule you wrote. The exact weights and tolerances are part of Limbix's method version provisional-2026-09.4; they'll be published here once the method is validated.

Worked example#

Your playbook "London Breakout" has Max risk / trade €150, Min R:R ratio 2 and Max hold 60 min. Your own max risk per trade in Settings is €200, so the stricter cap is €150.

In the last 30 days you took 12 trades. Two had no playbook, so they're left out. The other 10:

Risk Rule Adherence = 24 ÷ 28 × 100 = 85.7, rounded to 86.

The breakdown card names the rule that is actually breaking: "Minimum R:R was breached on 3 of 8 checks. 1 other check failed too."

When it shows "—"#

There is no minimum number of checks: one applicable check is enough to score. When it shows "—", its weight passes to the other components. It is never scored as 0.

What's a good risk rule adherence score?#

100 means every applicable risk rule held on every linked trade. The breakdown card colours components with the discipline cutoffs: 85 and above reads as strong, below 50 as breaking.

Risk Rule Adherence is one of the two lighter components of the Risk Score. Risk Consistency and Loss Containment carry most of the weight.

How to improve it#

1. Write risk rules you mean. Set Max risk / trade, Min R:R ratio and Max hold on each playbook, per strategy. A scalp book and a swing book need different floors. Check the first two even on a playbook you never touched: the editor fills them with defaults, a field left empty saves as its default, and both are scored. Max hold stays off until you set it. See playbook risk parameters.
2. Enter a stop and a target on every trade. The minimum R:R check needs both. See add a stop and target.
3. Fix the rule the card names. The sentence always points at the rule with the most failures. See find your weakest part.
4. Check your limit chain. If a prop firm rule is stricter than your playbook, that's the cap you're held to. See risk limit chain.

Where you'll see it#

• Discipline & Risk (/discipline): the Rule adherence row in What the risk score is made of. When it isn't measured, the row links to Open playbooks. See read the risk ring.
• Indirectly wherever the Risk Score and Discipline Score appear.

Frequently asked questions#

What is the difference between Risk Rule Adherence and Rule Compliance?#

Rule Compliance covers the written rules in your playbook, like "wait for the candle close", which you tick or mark broken. Risk Rule Adherence covers the numeric risk parameters, which Limbix checks for you from the trade's own figures. Rule Compliance feeds your Discipline Score directly. Risk Rule Adherence feeds the Risk Score, which can cap it.

Why was my trade skipped instead of failed?#

Because it lacked the figure the rule needs. The minimum R:R check needs a stop and a target to compute expected R:R. The max hold check needs a closed trade. The risk cap needs a risk amount and a cap. A missing figure means the rule couldn't be applied. Limbix scores your discipline, not how complete your journal is.

Which max risk per trade applies if I have several?#

The strictest one. Limbix resolves your account-level limit in order: a prop firm's rule first, then your default in Settings › NEX. It then compares that with the playbook's own cap and uses the lower amount. With several playbooks on one trade, it uses the lowest cap among them. Every cap that applies to a trade has to hold.

Why doesn't Limbix score Max position size?#

Because on futures and forex it can't mean what it says. It compares quantity × entry price with your account size, which for one index future is the whole contract value. That check fails almost every futures and forex trade, which measures the asset class, not you. The field still exists in your playbook. It just isn't scored.

Why doesn't Limbix publish the exact weights?#

Because the method is still being validated on real traders. How much Risk Rule Adherence counts toward the Risk Score may change as Limbix calibrates it, and publishing numbers that may change would mean public corrections. Exact numbers also invite people to play to the line rather than trade well. The checks themselves are fully explained above: the thresholds are the ones you set in your own playbooks.