agentleFS
BuddhiliveBuddhilive/buddhi-cli/.agents/skills/audit-performance/SKILL.md

audit-performance

Skill1 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub

Audit and prioritize performance work through bounded-work and forward-progress checks. Use when asked to find performance issues, investigate freezes/500s/OOMs, review retries or polling for no-progress loops, rank a performance backlog, or implement the next simple performance fixes.

8 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use port-features, implement-spec-with-codex and 1 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • dzhngSkill

    port-features

    Port a feature from an existing repository by copying its actual code and editing the copy, so its bug fixes and behavioral nuances survive, then naturalizing it to this project's names and environment. Use when asked to copy or port an existing feature (especially an exact copy), when moving one into a different framework or host, or when a previous reimplementation missed upstream behavior.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • dzhngSkill

    implement-spec-with-codex

    Run [implement-spec](../implement-spec/SKILL.md) with Codex doing the implementation passes while you orchestrate, integrate, and review. Use when the user asks to implement a spec with Codex, or to run implement-spec with Codex as the implementer.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • antonio-orionusSkill

    find-state-machines

    Report every implicit state machine in a project, with its states, transitions and flaws.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 7

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Record before fixing: If the project keeps a performance ledger, append every supported finding and important dismissal using its existing …

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    Prioritize with the policy below: If implementation is authorized, invoke the project's test-writing workflow and prove the old behavior …

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    Prefer low-risk fixes that bound existing work: stream pagewise, honor backpressure, coalesce schedules, move poison rows aside, skip …

    line 36
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not prioritize by scary-looking counts alone:

    line 41
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not optimize information away when it may soon support product UI or behavior.

    line 47
  6. Distinctive:

    Check that a measured workload does what it claims before trusting its numbers: that the forces meet, the route is travelled, the failure …

    line 65
  7. Distinctive:

    Every limit introduced or changed must have an observable log or metric with the limit kind, configured bound, affected owner, and overload …

    line 70

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Audit Performance

Find work that grows without a useful bound or repeats without progress. Produce an evidence-backed ledger or report, then prefer the smallest fix that preserves recovery.

Workflow

  1. Trace hot paths. Find recurring syncs, polls, streams, retries, queues, scheduled jobs, filesystem walks, and request-time reads. Follow each through its production caller; ignore test-only paths.
  2. Compute the amplification. State the trigger and worst-case work in concrete units: rows, queries, pages, entries, bytes, jobs, retries, or full-file rewrites. Distinguish a bounded large constant from work that grows with history, tenants, paths, or outage duration.
  3. Check forward progress. For every retry, fixed-prefix batch, cutoff, or transitional poll, identify what changes before the next attempt. If nothing must change, it can loop or starve forever. Check that partial fixes do not merely delay the same work.
  4. Falsify severity. Inspect existing caps, indexes, backoff, deadlines, healing owners, and caller frequency. Dismiss findings already bounded cheaply enough or continuously healing.
  5. Record before fixing. If the project keeps a performance ledger, append every supported finding and important dismissal using its existing convention. Otherwise return a compact report. Include priority, trigger, impact, current owner, acceptance seam, and evidence.
  6. Prioritize with the policy below. If implementation is authorized, invoke the project's test-writing workflow and prove the old behavior red at the outermost practical seam. Fix, review, and update the ledger or report with verification evidence.

Priority Policy

Rank highest when the issue can cause a user-visible freeze or error, memory/disk growth, blocked request processing, data loss, fleet-wide amplification, or a poison item that prevents later work.

Prefer low-risk fixes that bound existing work: stream pagewise, honor backpressure, coalesce schedules, move poison rows aside, skip proven no-ops, or make one exhaustive search end in a terminal verdict. A safety cap is a pathology guard, not a normal product limit: set it above legitimate large workloads, emit actionable telemetry when reached, and define what happens next.

Do not prioritize by scary-looking counts alone:

  • Polling may continue forever when the polled state has a real recovery owner and can eventually change. Fix states that can never heal, not timers that are merely long-lived.
  • Cheap bounded database work is acceptable without production evidence. Do not build a projection, cache, cursor state machine, or alternate read model just to reduce a modest fixed query count.
  • Do not optimize information away when it may soon support product UI or behavior.

Guardrails

  • Preserve healing. A cache or no-op shortcut must retain cheap recovery signals and fall back to ordinary reconciliation on drift, uncertainty, restart, or prior failure.
  • A recovery scan must either finish or persist forward progress. For a local, prunable namespace, prefer one complete pass with a ceiling high enough to indicate pathology rather than an ordinary large project. For a legitimately huge namespace, persist a cursor and resume after it. Finding the target updates identity; an exhaustive miss or abnormal ceiling produces the domain's terminal verdict. Never restart the same partial prefix forever.
  • Separate retryable failures from terminal ones. A permanent rejection must not sit at a queue head or fixed prefix forever.
  • Bound both sides of a transport and every durable/in-memory queue. State the overflow behavior; never silently drop accepted durable data.
  • Judge a cache, an index or a delta protocol by its worst edit, not its quiet average: an insertion into a long retained collection, a change far from the active view, a move, a deletion. Assert the bounded work alongside the exact result.
  • Check that a measured workload does what it claims before trusting its numbers: that the forces meet, the route is travelled, the failure arm runs. Measure the failure arm too.
  • Isolate a cost measurement from everything else running in the process.
  • Match compatibility work to the product lifecycle. In prelaunch code, prefer direct changes and add no legacy branches or migrations unless real persisted data requires them.
  • Every limit introduced or changed must have an observable log or metric with the limit kind, configured bound, affected owner, and overload outcome.

Done

The audit is complete only when every finding has a production trigger, quantified amplification, priority rationale, acceptance seam, and recorded disposition; every dismissed candidate says which bound or healing mechanism makes it acceptable. An implementation is complete only when its red/green proof shows bounded work and continued recovery.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.