improve-worker
Skill9 starsChanged 4 days agoMITView on GitHub
methodology for iterative improve loop workers.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
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 15
When out of ideas for the next optimization, search the web for techniques used in similar workloads.
- Distinctive: line 24
Before writing any optimization code, follow this sequence:
- Distinctive: line 32
Do NOT guess what to optimize based on code reading alone.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Mindset
- Correctness first, then efficiency — never sacrifice correctness for speed. Verify correctness after every change.
- Review existing code critically — before writing any new code, audit the current implementation with a strict eye. Question every abstraction, every redundant operation, every boundary. Understanding what's suboptimal comes before proposing changes.
- Zero progress is acceptable — most optimization ideas will not pan out. An iteration that concludes "no viable improvement found" after rigorous analysis is a valid outcome. Do not force changes just to show progress. Record what was tried and the metrics result. No need to guess why it failed — the next iteration will read the record and think for itself.
Research
When out of ideas for the next optimization, search the web for techniques used in similar workloads.
Rules:
- Use established, trusted references — prefer well-known, maintained libraries and official documentation as pattern references. Do NOT introduce unvetted third-party dependencies without explicit approval from the domain skill.
- Learn the technique, implement it yourself — the purpose of web research is to discover approaches, not to copy code.
- Cite what you found — in the iteration report, note what you searched for and any useful references discovered, so future iterations have context.
Optimization Workflow: Profile First
Before writing any optimization code, follow this sequence:
- Collect a baseline measurement — run a profiler or benchmark appropriate to the domain. Get a representative profile of the current state.
- Read the data — identify where time is spent: which operations, which phases.
- Compute efficiency — how close is current performance to the theoretical limit? This tells you how much headroom exists.
- Identify the bottleneck — is the system compute-bound, memory-bound, I/O-bound, or communication-bound?
- Target the bottleneck — only then choose what to optimize. Optimizing a non-bottleneck wastes an iteration.
Do NOT guess what to optimize based on code reading alone. Measurement is the source of truth.
Iteration Discipline
- One change each time — make only one logical change. Multiple unrelated changes make it impossible to attribute regressions.
- Never loosen tests or tolerances — tests exist to catch regressions. Weakening them is not an optimization. Fix the implementation, not the tests.
- Never modify ground truth — if a reference implementation exists, it is read-only. Do not alter it to make your implementation match.
- Verify on real infrastructure — complete the verification step on the target infrastructure before concluding the iteration. An iteration without verified results is a wasted iteration; the next worker will re-do the same work.
- Only revert changes that make tip worse. Revert regressions, broken tests, slower experiments, and scope cuts that leave the branch worse than before. Keep partial progress, completed milestones, and non-breaking refactors because they compose into the final deliverable. Tip must always stay releasable. Cleanup-only iters (dead code, readability) are valid output; iter may end with no commit.
- Cleanup tasks must not increase LOC.
- Report compute cost — every iteration report must summarize actual wall-clock cost for each tested configuration separately so the orchestrator can decide cost/benefit.
- Scope changes need user approval, not worker judgement — if measured throughput projects a runtime significantly above the task's stated budget, or if you encounter any obstacle that would require narrowing the deliverable (skipping slices, subsampling, dropping horizons, adding a default CLI flag that reduces work, etc.), do NOT silently trim scope. These are scope changes — they need the user to decide, not the worker. Surface the situation with concrete numbers (e.g.
observed 180 samples/s × 2.3M rows → projected 3h, task budget said 5-20 min) and wait for the user's decision before proceeding. "Budget overshoot" is a signal to escalate to the user, not to redefine the deliverable.
Anti-Patterns
| What went wrong | Why |
| Flip-flopped between approaches across iterations | Pick one approach and commit; if it doesn't work, record that and move on — don't revisit abandoned ones |
| Single-run benchmarks as evidence | Too noisy; use repeated measurements with sufficient warmup |
| Multiple changes per iteration | Hard to attribute regressions; keep diffs small |
| Added a uncommon third-party library instead of implementing the technique | Violates dependency rules; learn the approach, write it yourself |
| Optimized a component already near peak efficiency while ignoring one far from it | Profile-guided analysis should drive target selection, not intuition |
| Ended iteration without verification because infrastructure was slow | Wasted iteration — next worker re-does the same work. Wait for results. |
| Loosened test tolerances to make tests pass | Hides real errors; fix the implementation, not the tests |
| Created new tests with generous tolerances to bypass "never loosen" rule | Same as loosening, just indirect |
| Deleted tests for still-live functions, ran without them, reported "all pass" | Fake pass — tests for live functions must actually execute |
Silently reduced task scope (subsampled, added --max_samples default, dropped slices) to fit runtime budget | Scope is the user's decision — escalate with numbers, don't trim silently |
In this repository21 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- charliebotSkill
- claude-versionSkill
- cli-tool-trapsSkill
- feishuSkill
- file-serverSkill
- gmailSkill
- google-docsSkill
- google-oauthSkill
- google-sheetsSkill
- improve-goalSkill
- language-portSkill
- linearSkill
- llm-context-guidelineSkill
- perfettoSkill
- plan-approvalSkill
- pytorch-gpu-trainingSkill
- skill-managementSkill
- slackSkill
- voice-notesSkill
- writing-styleSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
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.

