AB performance-profiling
Application performance profiling and bottleneck identification — Node.js profiling, Chrome DevTools, flame graphs, memory leak detection, CPU profiling, React rendering performance. Activate on "profiling", "performance bottleneck", "flame graph", "memory leak", "slow app", "CPU profiling", "heap snapshot", "React re-renders", "EXPLAIN ANALYZE", "event loop lag", "clinic.js", "Core Web Vitals". NOT for infrastructure monitoring or observability (use logging-observability), load testing (use a load-testing skill), or database schema optimization.
Application performance profiling and bottleneck identification — Node.js profiling, Chrome DevTools, flame graphs, memory leak detection, CPU profiling…
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Write Edit Bash Grep Glob
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 67/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 50When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 34 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 3910 tokens
- 100Running it twice. Mutating operations check current state
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- -2localhost URLs: will not work for another user
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 12 example trigger phrases
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 552: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 29 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 34 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (15 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 98.