Trade execution modeling (backtest only) — slippage formulas (linear / square-root impact), VWAP/TWAP execution logic, market-impact cost estimation, and execution-assumption configuration.
66
80%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Fix and improve this skill with Tessl
tessl review fix ./agent/src/skills/execution-model/SKILL.mdProvide more realistic execution assumptions for backtests, including slippage models, market-impact estimation, and execution-algorithm principles. This skill is for backtest simulation only and does not involve live order execution.
Idealized backtest: filled at the close, zero slippage
Real world:
1. The order book has a bid-ask spread
2. Large orders push prices (market impact)
3. Execution is delayed (there is latency from signal to fill)
No slippage model -> overly optimistic backtest -> losses in live tradingdef fixed_slippage(price: float, direction: int, bps: float = 5.0) -> float:
"""
Args:
price: Original price
direction: 1=buy, -1=sell
bps: Slippage in basis points (1bp = 0.01%), default 5bp
Returns:
Execution price after slippage
"""
slippage = price * bps / 10000
return price + direction * slippageReference fixed-slippage assumptions by market:
| Market | Instrument | Suggested Slippage (bps) | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| China A-share large cap | CSI 300 constituents | 3-5 | Good liquidity |
| China A-share small cap | CSI 1000 constituents | 5-10 | Average liquidity |
| China micro-cap | market cap < 5 billion RMB | 10-30 | Poor liquidity |
| US large cap | AAPL / MSFT | 1-3 | Excellent liquidity |
| Hong Kong stocks | Hang Seng constituents | 5-10 | Less liquid than A / US |
| BTC spot | BTC-USDT | 2-5 | Good OKX liquidity |
| ETH spot | ETH-USDT | 3-8 | Slightly worse than BTC |
| Small altcoins | other -USDT pairs | 10-50 | Liquidity varies widely |
def linear_impact(price: float, direction: int,
volume_traded: float, adv: float,
impact_coeff: float = 0.1) -> float:
"""
Linear market impact: impact ∝ traded volume / ADV
Args:
price: Original price
direction: 1=buy, -1=sell
volume_traded: Trade size (shares or notional)
adv: Average Daily Volume
impact_coeff: Impact coefficient, usually 0.05-0.2
Returns:
Execution price after impact
"""
participation_rate = volume_traded / adv
impact = impact_coeff * participation_rate
return price * (1 + direction * impact)Reference impact coefficients:
| Market | impact_coeff | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| China A-share large cap | 0.05-0.10 | 10% daily price-limit system |
| China A-share small cap | 0.10-0.20 | Liquidity premium |
| US equities | 0.03-0.08 | Market-maker buffering |
| Crypto | 0.05-0.15 | 24h trading is dispersed |
import numpy as np
def sqrt_impact(price: float, direction: int,
volume_traded: float, adv: float,
volatility: float, eta: float = 0.5) -> float:
"""
Square-root market impact (more accepted in academia):
impact = η × σ × sqrt(V/ADV)
Args:
price: Original price
direction: 1=buy, -1=sell
volume_traded: Trade size
adv: Average daily volume
volatility: Daily volatility (standard deviation)
eta: Impact elasticity coefficient, usually 0.3-0.8
Returns:
Execution price after impact
"""
participation = volume_traded / adv
impact = eta * volatility * np.sqrt(participation)
return price * (1 + direction * impact)Advantages of the square-root model:
Backtest capital vs instrument ADV:
├── Capital < 0.5% of ADV -> fixed slippage (5bps) is enough
├── Capital 0.5-5% -> linear impact model
└── Capital > 5% -> square-root impact model (required)Goal: execute at the day's volume-weighted average price
VWAP = Σ(Price_i × Volume_i) / Σ(Volume_i)
Execution logic:
1. Forecast the intraday volume profile (typically U-shaped)
2. Split the order according to the predicted profile
3. Execute proportionally in each time slice
Typical China A-share VWAP volume profile (U-shaped):
09:30-10:00 15% (active open)
10:00-11:30 25% (normal morning session)
13:00-14:00 15% (weak afternoon session)
14:00-14:30 15% (afternoon recovery)
14:30-15:00 30% (active close)
VWAP in backtests:
- Daily backtest: use the VWAP field directly as the fill price
- Minute backtest: simulate VWAP order slicingGoal: execute evenly over a specified time window
TWAP = simple time-sliced execution
Execution logic:
1. Define an execution window (for example 09:30-11:30)
2. Divide it into N time buckets
3. Execute total_size / N in each bucket
Pros and cons:
+ Simple, no need to forecast volume
- Easier to cause impact during low-volume periods
- Less adaptive than VWAPdef delayed_execution(signal_series: pd.Series, delay_bars: int = 1) -> pd.Series:
"""
Simulate the delay from signal generation to execution
Args:
signal_series: Original signal
delay_bars: Number of bars to delay, default 1 (T+1 execution)
Returns:
Delayed signal
China A-shares: delay_bars=1 (T+1 rule)
Crypto: delay_bars=0 or 1
"""
return signal_series.shift(delay_bars)Total trading cost = explicit cost + implicit cost
Explicit cost:
- Commission: China A-shares 2-3 bps, crypto 0.02-0.1%
- Stamp duty (China A-share sell side): 0.05% (sell orders only)
- Transfer fee: negligible
Implicit cost:
- Bid-ask spread: 0.5-5bps
- Market impact: depends on trade size and liquidity
- Opportunity cost: loss from not filling at the best price| Cost Item | China A-shares | Hong Kong | US | Crypto (OKX) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commission (one way) | 0.025% | 0.05% | 0 (zero commission) | 0.08% (maker) |
| Stamp duty | 0.05% (sell) | 0.1% (both sides) | 0 | 0 |
| Bid-ask spread | 0.03-0.1% | 0.05-0.2% | 0.01-0.05% | 0.01-0.05% |
| Total one-way | ~0.1% | ~0.2% | ~0.03% | ~0.1% |
| Total round-trip | ~0.2% | ~0.4% | ~0.06% | ~0.2% |
{
"commission": 0.001,
"comment": "0.1% one-way commission, already includes stamp duty and spread"
}Recommendations:
commission = 0.001 (conservative, includes all costs)commission = 0.001 (including slippage)commission = 0.001-0.002config.json Settings{
"commission": 0.001,
"engine": "daily",
"interval": "1D"
}signal_engine.py)class SignalEngine:
def __init__(self):
# Execution assumption parameters
self.execution_delay = 1 # T+1 delay
self.slippage_bps = 5 # Fixed 5bps slippage
self.max_participation = 0.05 # Maximum participation rate 5%
def generate(self, data_map):
for code, df in data_map.items():
# 1. Generate raw signal
raw_signal = self._compute_signal(df)
# 2. Apply execution delay
delayed_signal = raw_signal.shift(self.execution_delay)
# 3. Apply volume filter (do not trade when liquidity is too low)
volume_ok = df['volume'] > df['volume'].rolling(20).mean() * 0.3
delayed_signal[~volume_ok] = 0
signals[code] = delayed_signalStep 1: Estimate annual turnover
Annual turnover = annual trade count × 2 (buy + sell) / number of positions
Step 2: Compute annual cost drag
Annual cost = annual turnover × total one-way cost
Step 3: Evaluate the impact on returns
Net return = gross return - annual cost
Example:
Annual turnover = 12 (monthly rebalance)
One-way cost = 0.1%
Annual cost = 12 × 0.1% = 1.2%
If annualized return is only 5% -> costs eat 24% of returns!### Backtest Results Under Different Slippage Assumptions
| Slippage (bps) | Annual Return | Sharpe | Max Drawdown |
|-----------|---------|--------|---------|
| 0 (ideal) | 15.2% | 1.35 | -18.5% |
| 3 | 13.8% | 1.22 | -19.0% |
| 5 | 12.9% | 1.15 | -19.2% |
| 10 | 11.1% | 0.98 | -19.8% |
| 20 | 7.5% | 0.65 | -20.5% |
Conclusion: the strategy still has meaningful profitability under 10bps slippage## Execution Cost Analysis
### Strategy Trading Characteristics
| Metric | Value |
|------|-----|
| Average annual trade count | 48 |
| Annual turnover | 4.8x |
| Average holding days | 25 |
| Average order size | ¥50,000 |
### Cost Estimate
| Cost Item | Per Trade | Annualized |
|--------|------|------|
| Commission | 0.025% | 0.24% |
| Stamp duty | 0.025% | 0.12% |
| Estimated slippage | 0.03% | 0.29% |
| **Total** | **0.08%** | **0.65%** |
### Cost Impact
- Gross return: 12.5%
- Net return: 11.85%
- Cost drag: -0.65% (5.2% of gross return)
- Conclusion: cost impact is manageable
### Optimization Suggestions
1. Lower turnover (lengthen holding period)
2. Avoid trading during low-liquidity windows
3. Use limit orders instead of market orderscommission in config: the default 0.001 (0.1%) is a reasonable all-in cost estimate8643fcd
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.