agentleFS
Sign inStart free
jabrenajabrena/cursor-rules-java/skills/164-java-profiling-verify/SKILL.md

164-java-profiling-verify

Skill452 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when you need to verify Java performance optimizations by comparing profiling results before and after refactoring — including baseline validation, post-refactoring report generation, quantitative before/after metrics comparison, side-by-side flamegraph analysis, regression detection, or creating profiling-comparison-analysis and profiling-final-results documentation. This should trigger for requests such as Verify performance fix; Verify the performance; Verify the memory; Verify the threading; Compare before and after profiling results; Check for performance regressions after refactoring. Part of Plinth Toolkit

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

11 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈10

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Verify performance optimizations through rigorous before/after comparison: ensure baseline and post-refactoring profiling data use …

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Use identical test conditions between baseline and post-refactoring.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    CONSISTENCY: Use identical test conditions and load patterns for baseline and post-refactoring

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    VALIDATE: Ensure both baseline and post-refactoring reports exist and are non-empty before comparison

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    BEFORE APPLYING: Read the reference for comparison templates and validation steps

    line 31
  6. Distinctive:

    EDGE CASE: If request scope is ambiguous, stop and ask a clarifying question before applying changes

    line 32
  7. Distinctive:

    EDGE CASE: If required inputs, files, or tooling are missing, report what is missing and ask whether to proceed with setup guidance

    line 33
  8. Distinctive:

    Check for performance regressions after refactoring

    line 45
  9. Very specific:

    Read references/164-java-profiling-verify.md and verify baseline artifacts exist and are non-empty.

    line 51
  10. Distinctive:

    Run profiling with identical load/test conditions to produce comparable post-refactoring artifacts.

    line 55
  11. Distinctive:

    Create comparison and final results reports with regressions, gains, and reproducible scenario details.

    line 63

≈ “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.

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

Java Profiling Workflow / Step 4 / Verify results

Verify performance optimizations through rigorous before/after comparison: ensure baseline and post-refactoring profiling data use identical test conditions, generate post-refactoring reports, compare metrics (memory, CPU, GC, threading), perform side-by-side flamegraph analysis, document findings in profiling-comparison-analysis-YYYYMMDD.md and profiling-final-results-YYYYMMDD.md, and validate success criteria.

What is covered in this Skill?

  • Pre-refactoring baseline: run profiler with same load before changes
  • Post-refactoring: generate new reports with identical test conditions
  • Comparison: memory (leaks, allocations, GC), CPU (hotspots, contention), visual flamegraph comparison
  • Documentation: profiler/docs/profiling-comparison-analysis-YYYYMMDD.md, profiler/docs/profiling-final-results-YYYYMMDD.md
  • File naming: baseline/after suffixes, timestamp-based organization
  • Validation: verify reports exist, compare metrics, identify regressions

Scope: Identical test conditions are critical. Document test scenarios. Validate application runs with refactored code before generating new reports.

Constraints

Use identical test conditions between baseline and post-refactoring. Verify both report sets are complete. Document test scenarios.

  • CONSISTENCY: Use identical test conditions and load patterns for baseline and post-refactoring
  • VALIDATE: Ensure both baseline and post-refactoring reports exist and are non-empty before comparison
  • DOCUMENT: Record test scenarios and load patterns for reproduction
  • BEFORE APPLYING: Read the reference for comparison templates and validation steps
  • EDGE CASE: If request scope is ambiguous, stop and ask a clarifying question before applying changes
  • EDGE CASE: If required inputs, files, or tooling are missing, report what is missing and ask whether to proceed with setup guidance

When to use this skill

  • Verify performance fix
  • Verify the performance
  • Verify the memory
  • Verify the threading
  • Verify the GC
  • Verify the profiling
  • Compare before and after profiling results
  • Performance benchmark
  • Check for performance regressions after refactoring

Workflow

  1. Read verification reference and confirm baseline data

Read references/164-java-profiling-verify.md and verify baseline artifacts exist and are non-empty.

  1. Generate post-refactoring profiling data

Run profiling with identical load/test conditions to produce comparable post-refactoring artifacts.

  1. Compare before/after metrics and visuals

Perform quantitative comparisons for memory/CPU/GC/threading and side-by-side flamegraph analysis.

  1. Document final verification outcome

Create comparison and final results reports with regressions, gains, and reproducible scenario details.

Reference

For detailed guidance, examples, and constraints, see references/164-java-profiling-verify.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.

Check your setup, free