options-structure-rules
Skill82 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
The hard structural constraints for the Public Portfolio Challenge momentum-LEAP options book — the spread-shape rule, the take-profit convexity-cap footgun, the affordability ladder, and the known losers not to re-test. Use whenever building or auditing an options strategy structure, checking spread-shape compliance before a certification, choosing DTE/strike rungs, or deciding whether a proposed structure change is even allowed. A violation is an automatic certification FAIL.
In this repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/alt-data-indicators/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/breadth-audit/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/bug-protocol/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/deploy-gate/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/engine-sanity/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/lockbox-holdout/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/options-structure-rules/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/portfolio-certification/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/run-episode/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/strategy-bakeoff/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/sweep-reoptimization/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- skills/walk-forward-oos/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- alt-data-indicatorsSkill
- breadth-auditSkill
- bug-protocolSkill
- deploy-gateSkill
- engine-sanitySkill
- lockbox-holdoutSkill
- portfolio-certificationSkill
- run-episodeSkill
- strategy-bakeoffSkill
- sweep-reoptimizationSkill
- walk-forward-oosSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 26
No long-dated debit or vertical spreads (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 52
If multiple "always" take-profit closes exist (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 62
Every template set must end in a rung the most expensive name can fill — never remove the cheapest rung when sweeping structures.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Options Structure Rules
The options structure family is settled by episode evidence — only the signal (ranking / weighting / filtering) is normally in play. These are hard constraints; a violation is an automatic certification FAIL.
The spread-shape rule (hard constraint)
- Long-dated exposure (≥ ~120 DTE) = outright long calls ONLY. Uncapped convexity, no short leg. No long-dated debit or vertical spreads (e.g. a Mar-'27 ATM/+3/+10/+20 capped vertical is a violation and cannot certify).
- Any debit / vertical spread must be short-dated — expiring in ≤ ~30 DTE. Thin is fine there.
Re-confirm compliance on every finalist by reading leg DTE/strikes from get_portfolio. Violation =
automatic FAIL, no exceptions.
Short-dated verticals are candidates, not banned
A prior thin +3%-wide, uncapped, every-name-eligible ≤30-DTE sleeve FAILED cert (theta bleed, fee churn, cratered the April-2025 fold). That disproved one point, not the class. A short-dated wide, share-capped debit spread is a different structure — let the sweep + OOS cert adjudicate it, but instrument it so the failure mode can't hide: width is a gene, sleeve share is a capped gene, and it must clear the same OOS gates plus a turnover/fee guardrail (report per-fold fees + turnover + sleeve share; a prior sleeve ballooned fees to $1.5–8.9k/fold vs the incumbent's ~$100–600 and must survive the April-2025 fold).
The settled structure family
Outright-calls-only momentum-LEAP: a 7-rung deep-OTM ladder (ATM / +10 / +20 / +35 / +50 / +75 / +100% OTM, 365–730 DTE), TP +250%, affordability backfill, SelectTop 21. Alt-data may touch the rank signal, entry filters, per-name tilts, or an overlay condition — never the structure rungs, the spread-shape rule, or the universe.
The take-profit convexity-cap footgun
If multiple "always" take-profit closes exist (e.g. P/L ≥ 20% / 50% / 200%), the lowest one binds first and effectively caps every winner at ~+20% — defeating the uncapped-convexity rationale for outright calls. It is the single most likely reason returns trail a let-winners-run book. Sanity-check the exit ladder for this on any live book; the deploy config uses a single high TP (e.g. +250%) or none.
The affordability ladder (structural feasibility)
At $25k cold start, a single-template ~$1k-per-name book structurally fails. Minimum defined-risk structures on the expensive tail (META / LLY / GS / TSM / ADI / AVGO) cost $1.3–2.4k per contract.
- Every template set must end in a rung the most expensive name can fill — never remove the cheapest rung when sweeping structures.
- Order templates expensive→cheap so the engine fills the first affordable rung.
- Cheap structures as the primary mechanism = kill path; the ladder must give every name an affordable unit.
totalBudget ≥ K × perNameAllocationper tier. Budgets cap cost basis, not market value — always verify on the tape withaudit_backtest_posture. Dollar budgets do NOT de-risk like %-of-NAV sizing.
See breadth-audit for measuring whether the ladder actually participates at fixed $25k.
Known losers on this book (don't re-test without new cause)
- Stop-losses on long calls / hold-to-expiry LEAP books — whipsaw; tested twice, hurt twice.
- SPY > 200-SMA regime gates — go flat in 2022 → can't clear the certification activity floor; a 200D-SMA momentum filter also tested WORST.
- Long-dated verticals — banned by the spread-shape rule.
- Thin short-dated sleeves at uncapped share — theta-bleed FAIL (see above).
- Narrow ranked rotation (top-K ≤ 5 with shared cadence) — keep K > 5.
Cadence note: DaysSinceLastRebalanceOptionOrder / DaysSinceOrder — null >= N is TRUE on fresh
books; the cadence clock is shared across RebalanceOption strategies.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

