walk_forward
shallowcom.folionomiq/folionomiq · Verify this server
Whether re-optimising an allocation would have helped: fit on the years before each date, hold on prices it had not seen, repeat, and compare that record with the portfolio actually held and with equal weights. Use it only when the reader asks whether an optimiser would have beaten what they hold; it is not for choosing weights. tickers are the candidates (2 to 30); holdings, if given, is the portfolio compared against; objective picks what each fit maximises (default max_sharpe); train_years and step_months set how much history each fit uses and how often it refits. Returns the record, never an allocation to hold.
1 trials · measured 1 day ago
walk_forward scores 100.0/100 on Vouch's measured behaviour index, from 1 real invocation trials against com.folionomiq/folionomiq, measured 6 Oct 2026 under methodology v0.2.0. Every measured component scored 100.
Component breakdown
| Component | Weight | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 35% | not applicable |
| Schema integrity | 25% | 100.0 |
| Failure behaviour | 15% | not applicable |
| Latency | 15% | not applicable |
| Concurrency | 10% | not applicable |
Tool details
- Transport
- remote
- Credential class
- self-provisionable
- Input schema
- not declared
- Output schema
- not declared
- Side-effect classification
- unclassified
Score history
| Day | Score | Tier | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-06 | 100.0 | shallow | v0.2.0 |
Probe evidence
| Probe | Outcomes |
|---|---|
| schema_integrity | pass: 1 |
Raw request/response logs are not archived yet — the outcome counts above are drawn directly from every recorded trial.
Embed this score
Available for every tool, scored or not — not a verification perk. Always links back to this page.
[](https://vouch.tools/tools/c565e924-052a-4e26-a1cc-d06f46c9111d)