agentleFS
morlutomorluto/rea/.agents/skills/rea-analysis-optimization/SKILL.md

rea-analysis-optimization

Skill381k starsChanged 7 days agoMITView on GitHub

Optimize REA providers and shared analysis workflows for agent context, latency, CPU, and memory while preserving correctness and Evidence. Use for analysis bottlenecks and cache or query design; CI/test-suite optimization belongs to rea-ci-tests-audit.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are 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.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Follow the checkout's performance priorities, tool design, and testing guide.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Use the current contracts, provider prerequisites, and user authorization.

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Read the Kuna case study when selecting a reuse strategy or interpreting a benchmark.

    line 18
  4. Distinctive:

    Use a separate checkout for changes without disturbing other work.

    line 28
  5. Distinctive:

    Use the evidence to choose the smallest structural correction:

    line 44
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not introduce an index, generic cache, batch endpoint, or orchestration layer without identifying the work it removes and its …

    line 54
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not replace a transport buffer cap with an unbounded retained inventory or hide partial results behind a success status.

    line 85
  8. Distinctive:

    Run the affected real public workflow before and after with equivalent inputs, results, coverage, and Evidence semantics.

    line 90
  9. Distinctive:

    Check the payload exit status as well as the profiler's.

    line 99
  10. Distinctive:

    Do not claim a complex-software advantage without completed representative investigations and comparable correctness/coverage.

    line 106

≈ “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

REA analysis optimization

Find a concrete source of unnecessary work, change it at its owner, and verify equivalent completed investigations. A useful outcome can also be a measured decision to leave an implementation alone.

Follow the checkout's performance priorities, tool design, and testing guide. This skill supplies an optimization workflow, not additional permission to execute targets, publish, or merge. Use the current contracts, provider prerequisites, and user authorization.

Read the Kuna case study when selecting a reuse strategy or interpreting a benchmark. Its pinned observations illustrate tradeoffs; they are not current-provider guarantees or universal speedups.

Pin the question and the correctness oracle

Describe the analyst's completed task, including the facts and relationships needed to answer it, requested detail, source access, and meaningful unknowns. Choose a representative real artifact and a small or empty case. Record the baseline revision, target digest, engine identity, options, host, and entrypoint. Use a separate checkout for changes without disturbing other work.

Establish an oracle independent of the changed implementation: source-built fixture expectations, independently mapped file bytes, or a native producer paired with checks of its interpretation. Comparing two wrappers around the same faulty decoder does not establish correctness. Preserve address widths, same-address alternatives, unresolved endpoints, coverage, and source linkage. An empty result proves absence only within the actually examined scope.

Locate the earliest unnecessary work

Trace one public CLI or MCP task through shared application code to its producer. Measure relevant phases: admission and identity checks, native analysis, decoding, lookup, projection, serialization, Evidence retention, and cleanup. Include catalog discovery and extra calls when they affect the completed task.

Use the evidence to choose the smallest structural correction:

Observed costCandidate correctionCondition to establish
Repeated scans of validated factsReuse existing order or lookup structureThe owner establishes ordering and identity; every matching alternative survives
Repeated equivalent engine workShare a validated result or in-flight producerInputs, freshness, lifetime, and per-caller outcomes remain explicit
Full reports for selected factsPush selection or projection to the earliest capable ownerRequired facts and evidence remain reachable; examined coverage is reported
Large temporary transport buffersDecode incrementally or use bounded source readsValidate the whole admitted document; retained facts and copies still consume memory
Many repeated homogeneous readsShare admission, decoding, or batch workPreserve item identity, order where required, and individual failures

Do not introduce an index, generic cache, batch endpoint, or orchestration layer without identifying the work it removes and its maintenance/resource cost. Projection after materializing a full report may reduce output while leaving analysis time and peak memory unchanged. Fix missing or incorrect facts before benchmarking an alternative composition against a better-covered workflow.

Keep one interpretation and a defined reuse lifetime

Let the producer boundary validate and normalize facts once. Consumers query that representation through the shared CLI/MCP implementation; adapters should not rebuild relationships or independently reinterpret raw reports. Keep lookup identity separate from display formatting. Reuse contracts when their intent matches, honoring requested detail and complete Evidence access.

For every cache or shared producer, state its key, owner, invalidation, retained size, and lifetime. Account for result-affecting target bytes, engine contents, analysis options, architecture/load mapping, and parser/schema versions where they affect reuse. Validate live state before calling a cached observation current. Cache a refusal only when it is deterministic for that validated key; malformed, partial, transient, or cancelled attempts need explicit retry policy.

One cancelled waiter must not invalidate a successful peer. Preserve producer failure context and each caller's cancellation reason. Retain ownership and capacity charges until shared work and cleanup settle; preserve completed observations when cleanup fails. Exercise invalidation, concurrent consumers, last-waiter cancellation, close, and cleanup retry when those paths change.

Bound the process family and retained state, not just a parent heap or worker count. Account for decoding and serialization expansion before allocation. Choose CPU, memory, concurrency, and disk limits from the host and workload; stop before OOM and verify owned cleanup. A guard-stopped task is incomplete. Do not replace a transport buffer cap with an unbounded retained inventory or hide partial results behind a success status.

Compare completed tasks and limit the claim

Run the affected real public workflow before and after with equivalent inputs, results, coverage, and Evidence semantics. Include small inputs so setup costs and regressions are visible. Distinguish fresh sessions, warm runtime caches, and OS file caches. Alternate or repeat runs when variance affects the decision. Choose meaningful boundary regressions for cases the actual engine cannot reliably reproduce; a fake engine does not qualify a real provider.

Report task outcome, relevant phase timings, total elapsed and CPU time, peak process-family memory and its accounting method, resource stops, and cleanup. Check the payload exit status as well as the profiler's. Keep failed attempts and identify unmeasured costs; a passing retry does not explain a failure.

For token claims, count schemas/discovery, arguments, replies, retries, and continuations needed to finish the task. Label tokenizer estimates separately from actual model usage and record the client/catalog behavior. Smaller JSON alone establishes neither fewer model tokens nor better investigation quality. Do not claim a complex-software advantage without completed representative investigations and comparable correctness/coverage.

Finish with the bottleneck, owning change, preserved semantics, executed checks, before/after measurements, and remaining limits. Keep any integration record current with its tested revision and distinguish merged production work from experiment-only code. Stop when the demonstrated bottleneck is resolved or further benefit remains speculative.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Aug 30: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 6: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projects
Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Who's talking about morluto/rea

The biggest 5 of 117 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 117

Talked about on GitHub, Bluesky, the web and Hacker News (117 times).

On GitHub · 50

45 more on GitHub

On Bluesky · 49

44 more on Bluesky

On the web · 13

8 more on the web
  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. kinqsradio/orbyn-fullstack-skills★ 1same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.

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.