optimize-proof
Skill0 starsChanged 46 days agoMITView on GitHub
Execution half of the performance two-step: take a profiler-SCORED hotspot list and convert the top targets into measured, behavior-proven speedups: one target at a time, proof harness written before the optimization, before/after measured on the real workload, green ratchet on every change, algorithmic wins before micro-tuning, stop when the next hotspot isn't worth the complexity. Use when "optimize this hotspot", "grind the hotspot list", "make this faster without breaking it", or when perf-max / project-autopilot hand over "scored hotspot list ready to optimize".
In this repository51 other files it gives its agents.
- advisor-councilSkill
- advisor-persona-buildSkill
- agent-exploit-pathsSkill
- agentic-loopsSkill
- ai-receptionist-tenant-onboardingSkill
- audit-lensSkill
- beadsmithSkill
- bug-sweepSkill
- bug-zeroSkill
- build-in-public-scope-guardSkill
- consulting-sales-playbookSkill
- deepenSkill
- deposit-first-shippingSkill
- design-intelSkill
- dueling-idea-forgeSkill
- forgeSkill
- hotspot-scoutSkill
- idea-forgeSkill
- incident-zeroSkill
- kickstartSkill
- local-llm-opsSkill
- memguardSkill
- memory-forgeSkill
- migrate-proofSkill
- no-slop-bug-hunterSkill
- perf-maxSkill
- polish-passSkill
- problem-breakthroughSkill
- project-autopilotSkill
- qwen-bug-zeroSkill
- qwen-forgeSkill
- qwen-kickstartSkill
- qwen-perf-maxSkill
- qwen-project-autopilotSkill
- qwen-ship-itSkill
- qwen-ux-maximizerSkill
- readme-realSkill
- reality-checkSkill
- recallSkill
- security-sweepSkill
- session-mineSkill
- ship-itSkill
- simplify-proofSkill
- skillifySkill
- stream-demo-prepSkill
- swarm-runSkill
- test-maxSkill
- trace-itSkill
- unslopSkill
- ux-maximizerSkill
- ux-scanSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 53
Green baseline + checkpoint: before any change. The ratchet needs a recoverable starting point and a known meaning of "green".
- Distinctive: line 64
Read the scored list; confirm each top entry has evidence, not just a name.
≈ “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.
Files
Optimize Proof
Step 2 of the pack's performance two-step: hotspot-scout finds and scores the bottlenecks; this skill kills them. Feed it the scored list and it works the top targets one at a time, each change measured before/after on the real workload, each change backed by a behavior proof (a test demonstrating identical observable behavior), each change banked or reverted under the green ratchet. It never picks its own targets; the profiler already did.
Core Insight: "Faster" is a two-part claim and most optimization work proves neither part: that the change sped up the real workload (not a micro-benchmark fiction), and that the program still does the same thing. This skill makes both non-negotiable per change, and the proof is written before the optimization, against the original code. A proof written after can only encode what the new code does; if the optimization quietly changed behavior, the after-proof blesses the bug. Fast and wrong is just wrong with better latency.
Core Insight #2: The win ladder is steep: a better algorithm or data structure beats not-doing-the-work (cache / batch / lazy), which beats doing-less-per-item, which beats micro-tuning, usually by an order of magnitude per rung. Spend the first thinking on why the target is hot (its complexity class, its redundant work, its I/O shape) and attack the highest rung that applies. Micro-tuning the inner loop of an O(n²) scan is polishing the wrong thing. And every rung has a price in complexity. When the next hotspot's plausible win no longer covers that price, stop. A codebase nobody can read is its own performance bug.
Preconditions / guards
- A scored hotspot list exists, from hotspot-scout (or an equivalent profiler-scored list: rank, location, dimension CPU/mem/I/O/contention, evidence). No list → STOP and route to hotspot-scout first. Optimizing by vibe is the cardinal sin; the profiler picks the work, never intuition.
- Not during active feature build (project-autopilot's baked-in anti-move). Features still churning (>10 modified files OR >3 in-flight beads) → STOP. Optimization is a maturity activity; don't tune code about to be rewritten.
- A reproducible real workload: the same realistic run hotspot-scout profiled. If the workload can't be re-run on demand, there is no before/after and no skill.
- Green baseline + checkpoint before any change. The ratchet needs a recoverable starting point and a known meaning of "green".
- Heavy local runs go through memguard on a unified-memory box (e.g. an
NVIDIA DGX Spark/GB10 class machine): profiled workloads, model-backed benchmarks,
anything memory-hungry launches as
memguard run --profile perf -- CMD, never bare. A measurement run that freezes the box measures nothing. On ordinary discrete-GPU or laptop hardware, run directly.
The Pipeline (staged: one target fully banked before the next exists)
Phase 0: Arm
Read the scored list; confirm each top entry has evidence, not just a name.
Re-measure the #1 target's baseline on the real workload. If the list's numbers
don't reproduce, the list is stale: re-scout, don't optimize a ghost. Confirm
green baseline, checkpoint, create <target>/.perf/OPTLOG.md.
Per target (top unworked entry on the list): the loop body
a. Understand. Read the hot code and its callers. Name why it's hot in one sentence (complexity class / redundant work / I/O shape / contention). That sentence picks the ladder rung; no sentence → you're not ready to change it.
b. Proof first. Before touching the code, write the behavior proof: a test that pins the target's observable behavior (golden outputs on representative inputs (edge cases included), invariants, metamorphic relations where exact goldens are brittle), with detailed logging so a future red shows what diverged, not just that something did. Run it green against the unoptimized code. Recipes in references/PROOFS.md.
c. Baseline. Measure before: N runs of the real workload (N≥5 for sub-second paths, ≥3 for long ones), record median + spread in OPTLOG. A delta inside the spread is noise, not a win. Know the noise floor before claiming above it.
d. Optimize. One change at a time, highest applicable rung first: (1) algorithm/data structure → (2) don't do the work (cache, dedupe, batch, precompute, lazy) → (3) do less per item → (4) move it off the hot path (async, background, ahead-of-time) → (5) micro-tune: last, and only with the upper rungs exhausted.
e. Prove + measure. Behavior proof green AND after-numbers on the same
workload, same N. Three outcomes: proof red → 2 repair attempts, then REVERT
to checkpoint and log reverted: behavior (right-but-red is red). Proof green
but the delta is inside the noise floor → REVERT and log reverted: no-win
(don't keep complexity that didn't pay). Both green → bank.
f. Bank. Checkpoint commit. OPTLOG entry: target, why-hot sentence, ladder rung, before/after numbers, proof file, status. Mark the entry worked.
g. Worth-it gate. Look at the next unworked entry: score × plausible speedup
vs. complexity of the likely fix. Not worth it → exit not-worth-it with the
remaining list intact. The goal is a fast program, not an empty list.
Phase Ω: Report
Final verify green, final checkpoint. Report: targets worked, cumulative
before/after on the workload, anything reverted (and why), exit reason
(list-done / not-worth-it / budget-hit). OPTLOG.md is the audit trail.
Contract (what orchestrators can rely on)
perf-max routes "scored hotspot list ready to optimize" here. Its documented
two-step is Step 1 profile (hotspot-scout) → Step 2 wrap THIS skill in
deepen and grind the top hotspots one at a time, each behavior-proofed and
green-ratcheted. project-autopilot routes the same trigger here automatically,
with the anti-move baked in: never during active feature build, never without a
profiler-scored target list. The interface is fixed:
- In: scored hotspot list (hotspot-scout output or equivalent) · target · reproducible workload · optional target budget.
<target>/.perf/OPTLOG.md: per-target log: why-hot, rung, before/after numbers, proof reference, banked/reverted. The caller reads this for deltas.- One proof test per banked change, committed with it. The speedup and its proof travel together; reverting one reverts both.
- Green exit, always: last action is verify + checkpoint or revert.
- Honest exit status:
list-done/not-worth-it(the good endings) /budget-hit(caller may re-arm). - Deepen-wrappable by design: one target per pass; OPTLOG plays the role of deepen's PASSLOG (banked targets are settled; the next pass starts at the next unworked entry, never re-litigates).
THE EXACT PROMPT
/optimize-proof
Target: <project path or hot subsystem>
Hotspots: <scored list path, e.g. <target>/.perf/HOTSPOTS.md from hotspot-scout>
Workload: <the reproducible real workload to measure against>
Budget: <optional: max targets this run; default: until not-worth-it>Anti-Patterns
- Optimizing without a scored list: picking targets by intuition, or "while I'm in this file anyway". The profiler picks; you execute.
- Writing the behavior proof after the optimization. It pins the new behavior and blesses whatever the change broke.
- Measuring a micro-benchmark instead of the real workload. You'll tune for a fiction and ship the same latency.
- Single-run before/after numbers: a delta inside run-to-run noise is not a win.
- Keeping a speedup that reds the proof because the numbers were great. Revert; fast-and-wrong is wrong.
- Keeping a no-win change because it "should help at scale". No measured gain, no merge; complexity must pay rent now.
- Micro-tuning rung 5 while a rung-1 algorithmic fix is available. Read the why-hot sentence again.
- Batching several optimizations into one change. When the proof reds, you can't tell which one broke it; one change, one proof, one measurement.
- Launching heavy measurement runs bare on a unified-memory box that has memguard. Wrap it or it didn't happen (a frozen box mid-benchmark loses the session AND the numbers).
- Grinding the list to empty past the worth-it gate. An empty list is not the goal; a fast program is.
References
- PROOFS.md: behavior-proof recipes (golden, invariant, metamorphic), the logging discipline, and the measurement protocol
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
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.

