本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

perf-budget-gate

Builds a unified release-readiness gate that aggregates verdicts from any combination of k6 / JMeter / Gatling / Locust load runners and Lighthouse CI Web Vitals, applies severity-aware pass/fail thresholds, and emits a single go / no-go decision with per-metric deltas vs the main-branch baseline. Posts the delta as a PR comment when the team has the integration set up. Use when authoring a CI step that gates a deployment on cross-runner perf compatibility.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qaスター 13(GitHub 13 + cccskills 0)

実行スコア 未検証

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md9.6 KB
  • .tessl-plugin/plugin.json593 B
  • references/ci-wiring-and-metric-sources.md2.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

perf-budget-gate

Overview

Modern teams measure perf at multiple layers:

LayerRunner
Backend loadk6-load-testing, jmeter-load-testing, and the Gatling / Locust references in load-testing-overview
Frontendlighthouse-perf - Web Vitals via Lighthouse CI

Each runner has its own pass/fail criterion. This gate unifies them into a single go / no-go verdict with per-metric deltas vs. main, and emits a markdown summary suitable for $GITHUB_STEP_SUMMARY or a PR comment.

This is the perf counterpart to data-quality-gate, visual-baseline-gate, and contract-compatibility-gate - same artifact shape, different domain.

When to use

  • The team uses two or more perf runners and wants one CI gate.
  • Per-PR perf delta vs. main is the team's regression-detection signal.
  • Some metrics should be advisory rather than blocking - e.g. block on p95 latency regression but warn on Lighthouse score drift.
  • Per-metric ratchet behavior is needed (existing budget breaches grandfathered, new breaches block).

If the project has only one runner, defer this gate - use the runner's native CI integration directly.

How to use

  1. Collect each runner's output artifact (k6 summary.json, Lighthouse lhr-*.json, and the rest) - the per-runner source map is in references/ci-wiring-and-metric-sources.md.
  2. Flatten every runner's output into the unified metric record (below), one record per measured subject + metric.
  3. Fetch the last green main-branch baseline and compute each record's delta.
  4. Apply the gate decision rule to produce a single go / no-go verdict.
  5. Emit the markdown + JSON artifact; a no-go exits non-zero and halts CI. Full CI wiring and per-metric budgets are in references/ci-wiring-and-metric-sources.md.

The unified metric record

Flatten every runner's output into one shape:

{
  "runner":   "k6",
  "subject":  "GET /api/orders",
  "metric":   "p95_latency_ms",
  "value":    320,
  "baseline": 280,
  "delta":    "+14.3%",
  "budget":   500,
  "status":   "pass",
  "severity": "blocker"
}
FieldSource
runnerk6 / jmeter / gatling / locust / lighthouse.
subjectURL path / sampler name / story ID - what was measured.
metricp95_latency_ms / error_rate / lcp_ms / inp_ms / cls.
valueCurrent run's value.
baselineLast green main-branch run's value (from artifact storage / Grafana / Lighthouse CI server).
deltaPercent change vs. baseline.
budgetConfigured threshold from the runner.
statuspass / fail based on value vs budget.
severityblocker / warn.

The gate decision rule

def gate_decision(records, *,
                  block_on_regression_pct=10,   # block if any blocker regresses >10%
                  warn_on_regression_pct=3):    # warn if anything regresses >3%
    blockers = []
    warnings = []
    for r in records:
        if r["status"] == "fail" and r["severity"] == "blocker":
            blockers.append((r, "budget breach"))
        elif r["delta_pct"] > block_on_regression_pct and r["severity"] == "blocker":
            blockers.append((r, f"regression > {block_on_regression_pct}%"))
        elif r["delta_pct"] > warn_on_regression_pct:
            warnings.append((r, f"regression > {warn_on_regression_pct}%"))

    return {
        "verdict": "no-go" if blockers else "go",
        "blocker_count": len(blockers),
        "warning_count": len(warnings),
        "blockers": blockers,
        "warnings": warnings,
    }

Two regression triggers:

  • Budget breach - value > budget (absolute threshold).
  • Regression - delta_pct > N% vs. baseline (relative).

Both matter: a metric within budget but trending up still warrants a warning.

Emit the artifact

Markdown summary:

# Perf Budget Gate - verdict: NO-GO

**Blockers: 2**

| Runner     | Subject              | Metric            | Current | Baseline | Δ      | Budget | Status |
|------------|----------------------|-------------------|--------:|---------:|-------:|-------:|--------|
| k6         | POST /api/orders     | p95 latency       | 620ms   | 280ms    | +121% | 500ms  | FAIL   |
| lighthouse | /dashboard           | LCP               | 3200ms  | 2100ms   | +52%  | 2500ms | FAIL   |

**Warnings: 3**

| Runner     | Subject              | Metric            | Current | Baseline | Δ     |
|------------|----------------------|-------------------|--------:|---------:|------:|
| k6         | GET /api/orders      | p95 latency       | 240ms   | 220ms    | +9%   |
| lighthouse | /                    | INP               | 180ms   | 150ms    | +20%  |
| locust     | GET /search          | p95 latency       | 410ms   | 380ms    | +8%   |

Plus a JSON sibling for downstream tooling:

{
  "verdict": "no-go",
  "blocker_count": 2,
  "warning_count": 3,
  "blockers": [...],
  "warnings": [...]
}

A no-go verdict exits non-zero - CI halts.

Worked example

Run the gate on one build: read the k6 and Lighthouse artifacts, flatten each into records, apply the rule, print the verdict, and exit with its code.

# scripts/run_perf_gate.py
import json, csv, sys, os
from pathlib import Path

records = []

# Source: k6 summary.json
k6_path = Path("k6-summary.json")
if k6_path.exists():
    s = json.loads(k6_path.read_text())
    p95 = s["metrics"]["http_req_duration"]["values"]["p(95)"]
    error_rate = s["metrics"]["http_req_failed"]["values"]["rate"]
    records += [
        {"runner": "k6", "subject": "global", "metric": "p95_latency_ms",
         "value": p95, "budget": 500, "severity": "blocker",
         "status": "fail" if p95 > 500 else "pass"},
        {"runner": "k6", "subject": "global", "metric": "error_rate",
         "value": error_rate, "budget": 0.01, "severity": "blocker",
         "status": "fail" if error_rate > 0.01 else "pass"},
    ]

# Source: Lighthouse CI lhr-*.json
for lhr in Path(".lighthouseci/").glob("lhr-*.json"):
    r = json.loads(lhr.read_text())
    url = r["finalUrl"]
    lcp = r["audits"]["largest-contentful-paint"]["numericValue"]
    inp = r["audits"]["interaction-to-next-paint"]["numericValue"]
    cls = r["audits"]["cumulative-layout-shift"]["numericValue"]
    records += [
        {"runner": "lighthouse", "subject": url, "metric": "lcp_ms",
         "value": lcp, "budget": 2500, "severity": "blocker",
         "status": "fail" if lcp > 2500 else "pass"},
        {"runner": "lighthouse", "subject": url, "metric": "inp_ms",
         "value": inp, "budget": 200, "severity": "blocker",
         "status": "fail" if inp > 200 else "pass"},
        {"runner": "lighthouse", "subject": url, "metric": "cls",
         "value": cls, "budget": 0.1, "severity": "blocker",
         "status": "fail" if cls > 0.1 else "pass"},
    ]

# Apply gate
blockers = [r for r in records if r["status"] == "fail" and r["severity"] == "blocker"]
verdict = "no-go" if blockers else "go"

print(f"# Perf Budget Gate - verdict: {verdict.upper()}")
for r in blockers:
    print(f"- {r['runner']} :: {r['subject']} :: {r['metric']} = {r['value']} (budget {r['budget']})")

sys.exit(0 if verdict == "go" else 1)

Anti-patterns

Anti-patternWhy it failsFix
Hardcoded budgets in the gate scriptBudgets evolve; updating requires code review.Externalize to .perf-budgets.yml consumed by the gate.
Comparing against the previous run, not the main baselineDrift compounds; the team approves a 5% regression every PR.Compare against the last-known-green main commit.
Block on every metricThe gate becomes "the perf gate that always fails."Block on the team's documented NFRs only; everything else is warn.
Skipping baseline storageFirst-run-after-budget-update has nothing to compare against.Persist baseline JSON as a build artifact uploaded on every main-branch run.
Asserting on Lighthouse score (categories:performance)The score conflates LCP/INP/CLS; one bad Web Vital tanks the score uninterpretably.Assert on individual Web Vitals; category score is supplementary.

References

  • Per-runner source artifacts, per-metric budgets, and the full CI wiring: references/ci-wiring-and-metric-sources.md.
  • data-quality-gate, visual-baseline-gate, contract-compatibility-gate - sibling gates with the same artifact shape.
  • non-functional-requirement-extractor - upstream skill that produces the threshold-bound budgets this gate enforces.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Builds a CI gate that fails the build on **new** WCAG / a11y violations introduced by a PR while grandfathering pre-existing violations on a per-rule / per-page baseline. Aggregates verdicts from axe-core / pa11y / Lighthouse a11y / WAVE / IBM Equal Access scans. Use when a project has accumulated a11y debt and a strict "zero violations" gate would block every PR - the ratchet pattern lets the team ship while preventing regressions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Workflow skill that builds an A/B-test validity checklist from an experiment proposal, walking the canonical design-correctness gates - pre-registered OEC/power/guardrails, randomization unit + SRM check, assignment integrity, telemetry, peeking discipline, novelty/primacy, post-experiment SRM re-check - into a per-experiment checklist + sign-off form. Use when launching, auditing, or governing an experiment. For pitfall mechanics (guardrails, peeking) see experiment-results-interpreter's references; to read an already-valid result use experiment-results-interpreter; for per-SDK harness tests use experiment-sdk-testing - this gates DESIGN, not SDK code.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

The single install-flow skill: the reference contract for the PWA install flow (installability gate fields, `beforeinstallprompt` handshake, per-platform paths - Android WebAPK / iOS Share menu / Firefox no-op - and the `display-mode` post-install signal, in references/install-flow-reference.md) plus the build-an-X workflow that emits the Add-to-Home-Screen suite. Walks the four-stage timeline, emitting one test per gate cell per [web.dev/articles/install-criteria][install-criteria], the deferred-prompt → `prompt()` → `userChoice` chain per [web.dev/articles/customize-install][customize-install], the iOS Safari manual-metadata branch (`apple-touch-icon`) per [web.dev/learn/pwa/installation][learn-pwa], and the post-install `(display-mode: standalone)` MQ assertion. Output: a Playwright spec with per-stage cells plus a coverage matrix. Use when a PWA's manifest, icons, or install handler change, when install conversion drops at an unknown stage, or when triaging a flaky install assertion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Build-an-X workflow that uses an LLM to map existing tests to spec sections - given a spec doc + the test suite, the LLM identifies which tests cover which sections, surfaces uncovered sections (gap), and recommends specific tests to add. Output is a coverage matrix per spec ID. Scope is mapping tests that already exist and naming the gaps, not authoring tests for new acceptance criteria. Use when a spec doc and a test suite both exist but nobody can say which requirements are actually covered - before a release sign-off, an audit, or a decision about where to spend the next round of test effort.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Generates tests from natural-language specs (acceptance criteria, user stories, requirements) using an LLM, with confidence scoring per test case (LLM self-assessment plus heuristics: assertion quality, naming, completeness), batching uncertain cases for human review, and integration with the team's existing test framework. Use when the user asks to generate unit tests from acceptance criteria, convert user stories to test cases, automate test creation from requirements, or augment a spec-driven test suite with AI-generated stubs that are then curated before merge.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

Configures Allure Report (test-runner adapter install, `allure-results` directory wiring, `categories.json` for failure classification, `history-trend.json` retention via the copy-history-between-runs pattern), runs the Allure CLI to convert `allure-results` to a static HTML site, and uploads the report as a CI artifact. Use when the team needs richer test reporting than JUnit XML - step-level attachments, per-test history, retry tracking, and severity / epic / feature labeling across framework-agnostic adapters (pytest, Jest, JUnit, TestNG, NUnit, Mocha). As a rich static HTML report generator, it is the open-source alternative to the sunset ExtentReports (JVM/.NET per-test HTML narrative); for hosted cross-run flakiness analytics rather than a static per-run report use currents-integration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

testland/qa132026年10月20日 更新

testland のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する