跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

performance-slo-planner

Performance, load, and reliability (SLO/SRE) planning for production readiness. Use when defining service level objectives, load characterization, capacity, latency budgets, stress/soak/spike test plans, false-positive baselines, and reliability targets. USE FOR: SLO/SLA definition, load testing plan, performance budget, capacity planning, reliability/SRE backlog, latency targets, error-budget policy. DO NOT USE FOR: executing load tests (use Azure Load Testing tooling), security threat modeling, RAI assessment, privacy/compliance planning, or authoring/restating PRD requirements (cite the PRD's existing NFR/FR ids instead).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

集成工具Azure
查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md5.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Performance & SLO/SRE Planner

Turn vague "it should be fast and reliable" expectations into measurable SLIs, SLOs, a load model, a test matrix, and a reliability backlog for production readiness. Pairs with Azure Load Testing tooling for execution. This skill plans; it does not run the tests.

When to Use

  • Defining service level objectives and error budgets before launch.
  • Characterizing load behavior (steady, peak, spike, soak) for a system with "no characterized load."
  • Setting latency/throughput budgets and a false-positive/accuracy baseline.
  • Producing a reliability/SRE backlog for a production-readiness review.

When Not to Use

  • Running the load tests: hand the test matrix to the Azure Load Testing tools.
  • Security, RAI, or privacy concerns: use the respective specialist skill.
  • Authoring or restating requirements: cite the PRD's existing NFR ids rather than re-deriving targets.
  • Redefining user journeys: reference the PRD's existing FR ids rather than inventing flows.

Inputs

Gather what exists; flag what is missing as an assumption to validate.

  1. Business goals (BRD): the business objectives and risk tolerance behind the targets (for example revenue-critical flows, contractual SLAs) that justify each SLO and error budget.
  2. Critical user journeys: the flows that must stay fast (for example: incident ingest → display, dispatch action, alert acknowledge).
  3. Stated NFRs (PRD): latency/availability targets from the PRD's NFRs, Success Metrics, and Operational Readiness sections (for example stratified SLAs like "Critical ≤ 60s, Standard ≤ 3min").
  4. Traffic assumptions: expected and peak concurrency, request rates, and growth.
  5. Accuracy expectations: false-positive tolerance where relevant (for example alerting).

Procedure

  1. Identify SLIs. For each critical journey pick measurable indicators: latency (p50/p95/p99), availability, error rate, and accuracy/false-positive rate where relevant.
  2. Set SLOs and error budgets. For each SLI define a target, a measurement window, and the resulting error budget. Anchor each SLO to a specific PRD NFR id when present; otherwise propose a target and mark it [ASSUMPTION] for tuning.
  3. Define the load model. Specify steady-state, peak, spike, and soak profiles with concurrency/rate and duration for each.
  4. Build the test matrix. Map each load profile to the journeys it exercises, the pass/fail SLO thresholds, and the environment.
  5. Plan capacity and degradation. Note scaling assumptions, saturation points, and required graceful-degradation behavior (no silent fidelity drops).
  6. List observability hooks. Name the metrics/traces needed to measure each SLI in production; an SLO you cannot measure is not real.
  7. Write the backlog to .copilot-tracking/performance-plans/<date>-performance-slo-plan.md using the Output Format.

Output Format

# Performance & SLO Plan: <app>

## SLOs
| SLI         | Journey         | Target           | Window         | Error budget | Source                 |
|-------------|-----------------|------------------|----------------|--------------|------------------------|
| p95 latency | dispatch action | ≤ 60s end-to-end | 28-day rolling | 1%           | NFR-123 / [ASSUMPTION] |

## Load model
| Profile             | Concurrency / rate | Duration | Purpose  |
|---------------------|--------------------|----------|----------|
| Steady              | ...                | ...      | baseline |
| Peak / Spike / Soak | ...                | ...      | ...      |

## Test matrix
| Test | Profile | Journeys | Pass threshold | Env |
|------|---------|----------|----------------|-----|

## Observability hooks
- <metric/trace needed to measure each SLI>

## Backlog
1. <item>: priority, depends-on, SLO it protects

> [!CAUTION]
> This plan is an assistive artifact and does not replace professional performance, reliability, or SRE review. Validate SLO targets, error budgets, and rollback triggers with the owning team before acting on them.

Principles

  • Measurable or it's not an SLO. Every target needs a defined SLI and a way to measure it in production.
  • Anchor to the PRD, mark the rest. Use stated NFRs verbatim; flag proposed numbers [ASSUMPTION] for agency/environment tuning.
  • Plan, don't run. Output a test matrix the Azure Load Testing tools can execute; do not execute here.
  • Degradation is a requirement. Define what graceful degradation looks like, not just the happy path.
  • Review-required. This plan is assistive: carry the professional-review disclaimer and validate targets and budgets with the owning team before acting.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Consolidated accessibility skill entrypoint for WCAG 2.2, ARIA Authoring Practices, cognitive accessibility, Section 508, EN 301 549, design intent verification, and the Accessibility Planner workflow.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

microsoft/hve-core15322026年10月18日 更新

Build, refresh, report, or probe an accessibility coverage matrix across criteria, surfaces, and evidence methods. Use when assessing coverage with the accessibility runtime harness and generated evidence bundle.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

microsoft/hve-core15322026年10月18日 更新

Authoring skill for Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) supporting capture, from-planner-handoff, and adopt-template entry modes with selectable Y-Statement or MADR v4.0.0 output templates, supersession lineage, and ASR trigger evaluation.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

microsoft/hve-core15322026年10月18日 更新

Authoring conventions for exploratory data analysis notebooks and analytical dashboards, covering section sequence, visualization selection, scale thresholds, caching and state, and dashboard validation budgets. Use when composing or reviewing an EDA notebook, an analytical dashboard, or a dashboard test pass.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

microsoft/hve-core15322026年10月18日 更新

Architecture diagram authoring for cloud infrastructure and declared data catalogs. Use when rendering Azure IaC or DS_CATALOG_V1 relationships as caller-selected ASCII or Mermaid diagrams.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

microsoft/hve-core15322026年10月18日 更新

Create a durable Architecture Review Record from a confirmed System Architecture Reviewer scope, evidence, pillar analysis, trade-offs, and dispositions

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

microsoft/hve-core15322026年10月18日 更新

查看 microsoft 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题