본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

performance-optimization

Measure, profile, and fix performance bottlenecks — Core Web Vitals, backend latency, bundle size, and database queries. Load when performance requirements exist, users report slowness, profiling reveals bottlenecks, or the user asks to optimize load time, LCP, INP, CLS, or response time. Not for premature optimization without evidence. Pairs with browser-testing-with-devtools and ci-cd-and-automation for regression guards.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md4.5 KB
  • references/examples.md2.6 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Performance Optimization

Measure before optimizing. Profile first, fix the proven bottleneck, measure again, then guard against regression.

Hard Rules

  • Never optimize without a baseline measurement (synthetic + real-user when possible).
  • Fix the actual bottleneck — not the most interesting code.
  • One change at a time when validating; otherwise you cannot attribute wins.
  • Set budgets (LCP, bundle KB, p95 latency) and fail CI when exceeded.
  • Document what you measured, what you changed, and the delta.

Core Web Vitals Targets

MetricGoodNeeds workPoor
LCP≤ 2.5s≤ 4.0s> 4.0s
INP≤ 200ms≤ 500ms> 500ms
CLS≤ 0.1≤ 0.25> 0.25

Workflow

Step 1 — Measure baseline

  • Frontend: Lighthouse (synthetic), DevTools Performance, web-vitals RUM.
  • Backend: APM, query logs with timing, p50/p95/p99 on critical endpoints.
  • Record environment, device, and data volume.

Step 2 — Identify bottleneck

Use symptom → probe map:

Slow first load → bundle size, render-blocking, LCP element
Slow interaction → INP, main-thread long tasks, layout thrash
Slow API → N+1 queries, missing indexes, cold starts
Memory growth → leaks, unbounded caches, retained DOM

Step 3 — Fix narrowly

Prefer highest-impact, lowest-risk fixes: indexes, caching, code-split, image sizing, defer non-critical JS.

Step 4 — Verify

Re-run the same measurement as Step 1. Report before/after numbers.

Step 5 — Guard

Add Lighthouse CI budget, bundle-size check, or perf test on the hot path.


When NOT to use

  • No evidence of a problem and no stated budget
  • Micro-optimizing cold paths while hot paths are unmeasured
  • Replacing architecture before profiling

Gotchas

  • Synthetic scores ≠ real-user experience — use both.
  • Optimizing the wrong layer (CSS when the DB is the bottleneck).
  • Caching without invalidation creates subtle bugs.
  • Bundle "tree-shaking" claims without measuring shipped bytes.

Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"It feels fast on my machine"Your machine is not production traffic or network.
"We'll add monitoring later"Without baselines you cannot prove improvement.
"Let's rewrite in Rust"Profile first — often the query or algorithm is the issue.
"Lighthouse is enough"Lab scores miss real devices and cache states.
"Ship now, optimize later"Regressions are cheaper to block in CI than fix in prod.

Output Format

## Performance report — [area]

Baseline: [metrics + how measured]
Bottleneck: [evidence]
Change: [what]
After: [metrics]
Guard: [CI/monitoring added]

Examples

<examples> <example> <input>"Homepage LCP is 5s in CrUX."</input> <output>Measure LCP element (hero image). Compress, preload, fix CLS from font swap. Re-run Lighthouse + verify CrUX trend.</output> </example> </examples>

Verification

  • Baseline captured with method and environment noted
  • Bottleneck identified with evidence (not assumption)
  • After metrics show improvement on the same probe
  • Regression guard added or explicitly deferred with reason
  • No premature micro-opts on unmeasured paths

Red Flags

  • Optimization started without baseline measurement
  • CSS or frontend tuned while DB is actual bottleneck
  • Multiple changes shipped — win cannot be attributed
  • Synthetic score improved but real-user metrics flat

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

  • No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Area: [frontend/backend] | Baseline: [key metric]
Bottleneck: [one line] | Delta: [before → after]
Guard: [added/deferred]

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

dvy1987의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고