sweep-reoptimization
Skill82 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Re-optimize a NexusTrade strategy with a walk-forward SWEEP and label parameter provenance — the discipline that prevents deploying inherited knobs. Use whenever a structural change (sizing, rung depth, universe membership, DTE family, adding a rank signal) forces a re-sweep, when authoring gene_intents from get_sweep_surface, when choosing sweep over GA for a deploy cert, or when selecting the cross-fold-robust winner instead of the per-fold argmax. Invoke with the NexusTrade MCP connected.
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
- options-structure-rulesSkill
- portfolio-certificationSkill
- run-episodeSkill
- strategy-bakeoffSkill
- walk-forward-oosSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 66
Read aggregate.crossFoldRobustSelection — metric:"minSortino", candidateKey, score, perFoldSortino: the grid cell with the highest …
≈ “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
Sweep Re-Optimization & Provenance
The three standing methodology rules that exist because a deploy candidate was once certified on knobs inherited from a sweep on a different structure and presented as "optimal."
The three standing rules (binding on all future episodes)
- Re-optimize on ANY structural change — never inherit a genome across structures. Knobs (TP,
total budget, per-name size, rank window, VIX gate, entry cooldown, DTE bracket) are
structure-dependent. Whenever the structure changes — affordability rungs, strike depths,
universe membership (e.g. adding a name), DTE family, entry/exit shape, or adding an alt-data rank
signal — re-run the
engine_kind:"sweep"walk-forward on the NEW book before certifying. Abacktest_onlycert on inherited knobs only confirms the book generalizes; it does not establish the knobs are good for that structure. - Separate "explore designs" from "optimize the chosen design." Screen candidate designs → pick
one → then sweep that exact design's knobs → then
backtest_only-certify. If the screen picks design X, the sweep base must be X itself, not its neighbours. Never sweep the losers' variants while leaving the chosen book hand-tuned. - Label every deployed parameter's provenance in the deliverable —
swept-on-this-book/inherited-from <study-id>/hand-set. "Inherited" is amber, not green, until re-swept on the current structure.
Self-check trigger words: "carry over the knobs," "reuse the winner's params," "same config on the new ladder," "already certified, no need to re-sweep," "just raise the allocation." Each must prompt: did the structure change since those knobs were searched? If yes → re-sweep before certifying.
Running the sweep
get_sweep_surfaceon the chosen book (or a clean clone) FIRST to get the real sweepable field names. Re-sweep from a CLEAN seed — re-sweeping an already-swept book can stack/duplicate genes; field-audit for duplicated conditions.run_walk_forward_studywithengine_kind:"sweep",inner_mode:"optimize",certification:true,mode:"validation", anchored, 5 folds (4 acceptable), 2022→today,oos_width_days:252. See walk-forward-oos for the full param block. GA overfits and is rejected for deploy certification — sweep is the certified path.preview_only:truefirst to compile genes + cost-check.- Each sweep must be non-trivial: ≥3
gene_intentsaxes × ≥3 values each (e.g.BuyingPowerPct,TakeProfitPct,RollTriggerDte, rank depth, delta band, DTE). A 1-axis or 2-value sweep does not qualify.
Exact sweep field mappings (get these wrong and the sweep is meaningless)
- Take-profit =
TakeProfitPcton Action scope. Never sweep it asExitCondition/OptionPositionPercentChange. - Roll DTE =
RollTriggerDteon Action scope (roll the CloseOption only). CloseOptionpnl triggers:minPnlPercent:100= +100% TP;maxPnlPercent:-50= −50% stop; DTE roll ={type:"dte","maxDte":45}.
Selecting the winner (robust, not argmax)
Read aggregate.crossFoldRobustSelection — metric:"minSortino", candidateKey, score,
perFoldSortino: the grid cell with the highest minimum validation Sortino across folds. Compare
it against each fold's selectedCandidateKey, aggregate.dominantCandidateKey, and
winnerStableAcrossFolds. Deploy the cross-fold-robust config, never the per-fold argmax — the
per-fold winner is high-variance noise.
Then run the full walk-forward-oos Stage-C checks 1–7 on that winner before it may be the finalist, and attach provenance labels (rule 3).
Custom indicators are NOT sweepable
The sweep engine's allowedIndicatorTypes does not include CustomIndicator, so alt-data
indicator-shape exploration is a hand-built variant grid (create_portfolio_variant: deep-copy
base + JSON-Pointer patch, dry_run first), each certified backtest_only and labeled hand-set
(amber). The classic knobs (alloc / budget / TP / SelectTop / DTE) remain sweepable if a winner
warrants a knob re-sweep. See alt-data-indicators.
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.

