agentleFS
Prisma-Labs-DevPrisma-Labs-Dev/apple-skills/skills/guide-swiftui-performance-audit/SKILL.md

guide-swiftui-performance-audit

Skill336 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audit and improve SwiftUI runtime performance from code review and architecture. Use for requests to diagnose slow rendering, janky scrolling, high CPU/memory usage, excessive view updates, or layout thrash in SwiftUI apps, and to provide guidance for user-run Instruments profiling when code review alone is insufficient.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

16 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 8 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈8

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 8

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to diagnose SwiftUI performance issues from code first, then request profiling evidence when code review alone cannot …

    line 17
  2. Very specific:

    If code is available, start with a code-first review using references/code-smells.md.

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    If code is not available, ask for the smallest useful slice: target view, data flow, reproduction steps, and deployment target.

    line 23
  4. Very specific:

    If code review is inconclusive or runtime evidence is required, guide the user through profiling with references/profiling-intake.md.

    line 24
  5. Distinctive:

    Ask the user to classify the issue if possible:

    line 35
  6. Very specific:

    Use references/code-smells.md for the detailed smell catalog and fix guidance.

    line 54
  7. Distinctive:

    If needed, a minimal repro or instrumentation suggestion.

    line 59
  8. Distinctive:

    If code review does not explain the issue, ask for runtime evidence:

    line 63
  9. Distinctive:

    Before/after metrics if the user is comparing a change.

    line 67
  10. Very specific:

    Use references/profiling-intake.md for the exact checklist and collection steps.

    line 69
  11. Distinctive:

    Call out when profiling is still insufficient and what additional evidence would reduce uncertainty.

    line 76
  12. Very specific:

    Use equatable() only when equality is cheaper than recomputing the subtree and the inputs are truly value-semantic.

    line 84
  13. Very specific:

    Use references/code-smells.md for examples, Observation-specific fan-out guidance, and remediation patterns.

    line 88
  14. Distinctive:

    Ask the user to re-run the same capture and compare with baseline metrics.

    line 92
  15. Very specific:

    Use references/report-template.md when formatting the final audit.

    line 102
  16. Very specific:

    Add Apple documentation and WWDC resources under references/ as they are supplied by the user.

    line 109

≈ “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.

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

Guide Skill — This is an expert workflow/pattern guide, not API reference documentation. Originally from Dimillian/Skills by Thomas Ricouard. MIT License.

SwiftUI Performance Audit

Quick start

Use this skill to diagnose SwiftUI performance issues from code first, then request profiling evidence when code review alone cannot explain the symptoms.

Workflow

  1. Classify the symptom: slow rendering, janky scrolling, high CPU, memory growth, hangs, or excessive view updates.
  2. If code is available, start with a code-first review using references/code-smells.md.
  3. If code is not available, ask for the smallest useful slice: target view, data flow, reproduction steps, and deployment target.
  4. If code review is inconclusive or runtime evidence is required, guide the user through profiling with references/profiling-intake.md.
  5. Summarize likely causes, evidence, remediation, and validation steps using references/report-template.md.

1. Intake

Collect:

  • Target view or feature code.
  • Symptoms and exact reproduction steps.
  • Data flow: @State, @Binding, environment dependencies, and observable models.
  • Whether the issue shows up on device or simulator, and whether it was observed in Debug or Release.

Ask the user to classify the issue if possible:

  • CPU spike or battery drain
  • Janky scrolling or dropped frames
  • High memory or image pressure
  • Hangs or unresponsive interactions
  • Excessive or unexpectedly broad view updates

For the full profiling intake checklist, read references/profiling-intake.md.

2. Code-First Review

Focus on:

  • Invalidation storms from broad observation or environment reads.
  • Unstable identity in lists and ForEach.
  • Heavy derived work in body or view builders.
  • Layout thrash from complex hierarchies, GeometryReader, or preference chains.
  • Large image decode or resize work on the main thread.
  • Animation or transition work applied too broadly.

Use references/code-smells.md for the detailed smell catalog and fix guidance.

Provide:

  • Likely root causes with code references.
  • Suggested fixes and refactors.
  • If needed, a minimal repro or instrumentation suggestion.

3. Guide the User to Profile

If code review does not explain the issue, ask for runtime evidence:

  • A trace export or screenshots of the SwiftUI timeline and Time Profiler call tree.
  • Device/OS/build configuration.
  • The exact interaction being profiled.
  • Before/after metrics if the user is comparing a change.

Use references/profiling-intake.md for the exact checklist and collection steps.

4. Analyze and Diagnose

  • Map the evidence to the most likely category: invalidation, identity churn, layout thrash, main-thread work, image cost, or animation cost.
  • Prioritize problems by impact, not by how easy they are to explain.
  • Distinguish code-level suspicion from trace-backed evidence.
  • Call out when profiling is still insufficient and what additional evidence would reduce uncertainty.

5. Remediate

Apply targeted fixes:

  • Narrow state scope and reduce broad observation fan-out.
  • Stabilize identities for ForEach and lists.
  • Move heavy work out of body into derived state updated from inputs, model-layer precomputation, memoized helpers, or background preprocessing. Use @State only for view-owned state, not as an ad hoc cache for arbitrary computation.
  • Use equatable() only when equality is cheaper than recomputing the subtree and the inputs are truly value-semantic.
  • Downsample images before rendering.
  • Reduce layout complexity or use fixed sizing where possible.

Use references/code-smells.md for examples, Observation-specific fan-out guidance, and remediation patterns.

6. Verify

Ask the user to re-run the same capture and compare with baseline metrics. Summarize the delta (CPU, frame drops, memory peak) if provided.

Outputs

Provide:

  • A short metrics table (before/after if available).
  • Top issues (ordered by impact).
  • Proposed fixes with estimated effort.

Use references/report-template.md when formatting the final audit.

References

  • Profiling intake and collection checklist: references/profiling-intake.md
  • Common code smells and remediation patterns: references/code-smells.md
  • Audit output template: references/report-template.md
  • Add Apple documentation and WWDC resources under references/ as they are supplied by the user.
  • Optimizing SwiftUI performance with Instruments: references/optimizing-swiftui-performance-instruments.md
  • Understanding and improving SwiftUI performance: references/understanding-improving-swiftui-performance.md
  • Understanding hangs in your app: references/understanding-hangs-in-your-app.md
  • Demystify SwiftUI performance (WWDC23): references/demystify-swiftui-performance-wwdc23.md

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.