tick-stock-panel
TSP自托管、零运维的 A 股「选股 + 监控 + 回测」量化工作台 | LLM能力驱使策略定制+个股分析+复盘 | 自由接入第三方数据源与个性化扩展数据 | 个人开源
Runssource: GitHubPythonMITcommit bab609b2d42c
Python, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: a stock, ai agent, aigc, backtesting, daily, duckdb, fastapi and llm.
tick-stock-panel runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 10 minutes and hit 1 error and fixed every one without help on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.
The backend (FastAPI) starts and serves the health endpoint at HTTP 200, the Swagger UI at /docs, and all 60+ API routes. The frontend builds to production dist via tsc -b && vite build. The backend test suite passes 1511 of 1512 tests (1 skipped). Everything runs in TickFlow free/none mode without any API key.
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured
Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 100 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).
At a glance
Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed . Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.
What was measured
From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.
What went wrong, in the agent's own words
The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.
- Flaky test failure in test_ext_config_load_all_cache.py::test_upsert_edit_invalidates_cache — passes when run individually but fails under full suite ordering2 minutes
- Install time
- 10 minutes
- Cold machine to finish
- 11 minutes
- Errors hit and fixed
- 1 hit, 1 fixed with no human help
- How the result was proved
- pytest tests/ passed 1511 of 1512 (1 skipped); pnpm build completed with 0 errors; curl http://localhost:3018/health returned HTTP 200 body '{"status":"ok","version":"0.2.2","mode":"none"}'; curl http://localhost:3018/docs returned HTTP 200 with Swagger UI
- Model tokens used
- 76,306
- Exact commit tested
- bab609b2d42c
- Container image
- sha256:cdd920bce783
What was not measured
The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.
- Peak GPU memory
- this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
- Behaviour over a long run
- each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load
The end of the recording
The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.
INFO: 127.0.0.1:37238 - "GET /health HTTP/1.1" 200 OK health: 200 INFO: 127.0.0.1:37250 - "GET /docs HTTP/1.1" 200 OK docs: 200 INFO: 127.0.0.1:37266 - "GET /api/auth/status HTTP/1.1" 200 OK api/auth/status: 200 Everything verified successfully. Let me clean up and report exec /bin/sh -lc 'pkill -f uvicorn 2>/dev/null; pkill -f "pnpm dev" 2>/dev/null; pkill -f vite 2>/dev/nu… exited 143 in 0ms: tokens used 76,306
Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.
How it was tested
One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.
Strengths and limits
Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.
What went well
- Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
- Installed in 10 minutes.
- Recovered from all 1 error without a human stepping in, which says the failures are documented well enough to solve.
- Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
- Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
- Measured 2 times, so the result is not a one-off.
What it is a reasonable choice for
- Trying it on a laptop or a small server: it reached a running state without a GPU.
- A quick evaluation: it was running 10 minutes after the clone.
Also tested, in the same area
Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.
Run history
Topics (from GitHub)
a-stockai-agentaigcbacktestingdailyduckdbfastapillmpolarsquantquantitative-financequantitative-tradingreactscreenerself-hostedstockstock-analysistdxtickflowtsp
Embed the badge
Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.
[](https://argusic.com/subject/tick-stock-panel)Questions
- Does tick-stock-panel run?
- Yes. tick-stock-panel runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 10 minutes, hitting 1 error on the way, and recorded the session.
- How did Argusic test tick-stock-panel?
- On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit bab609b2d42c. 2 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
- What did it cost to test tick-stock-panel?
- The run that produced this verdict cost $0.07: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
- How long does tick-stock-panel take to install?
- 10 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
- Does tick-stock-panel need a GPU?
- Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
- What goes wrong when installing tick-stock-panel?
- 1 thing broke in the recorded run, and 1 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
- Where is the evidence for tick-stock-panel?
- All 2 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.