perf-profile
GitHub性能剖析技能,用于识别瓶颈、测量预算并生成优化建议。严格检查输入数据完整性,若缺失则报告未评估,避免虚假结论。支持配置预算执行策略(警告、阻断或关闭)。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill perf-profile -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "perf-profile",
"model": "sonnet",
"description": "Performance profiling — find bottlenecks, measure against budgets, produce ranked optimization recommendations.",
"allowed-tools": "Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Bash(bash \"*\/.claude\/skills\/perf-profile\/..\/..\/hooks\/yaml-helper.sh\" resolve_config *)",
"argument-hint": "[system-name or 'full']",
"user-invocable": true
}
!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys performance.enforce,automation
Resolved above — use as-is. No block → defaults in
.claude/docs/config-resolution.md.
Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md
(collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds;
automation_always_ask categories always prompt).
Insufficient input — check this before producing any report
If the inputs this skill needs do not exist, the answer is "could not run" — not a filled-in report. Check first, and stop if the check fails.
- List the inputs this skill reads (data files, prior reports, profiler output, test results, registries, source code).
- For each, record
FOUNDorABSENT— not "assumed present". - If any input required for a section is ABSENT, that section is
NOT ASSESSED — NO DATA. Do not estimate it, do not infer it from an adjacent artifact, and do not leave a mandated cell to be filled by whoever reads the template next. - If every required input is ABSENT, stop and report
NOT ASSESSED — NO DATAas the whole verdict, naming what was missing and which skill produces it.
A verdict of NOT ASSESSED is a success. It is the correct, useful answer to
"what does the data say?" when there is no data. The failure mode this prevents is
specific and has been observed in practice: report templates whose verdict
enum had no "could not run" state produced false clean passes — an asset audit
returning COMPLIANT on a project with no assets and no standards, and a
performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against a 16.67ms budget" with zero
profiler data and no budget ever set.
Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence. A scan that finds no matches because there are no files to scan has not verified anything. Say which of the two happened — a reader cannot tell from a green result.
Phase 0: Resolve Budget Enforcement
performance.enforce decides what a budget violation means in this run. It
does not change which budgets are measured — performance.target_framerate,
frame_budget_ms, draw_call_limit and memory_ceiling_mb are profiled the
same way at every level:
| Value | Effect on this profile's findings |
|---|---|
warn (default) |
Violations are reported as findings. They do not block; CI logs them without failing. |
block |
Violations are blockers. Say so explicitly in the report — a block project treats an over-budget system as release-stopping, and /gate-check will FAIL the Polish gate on it. |
off |
Budgets are informational only. Still report measured values, but do not raise violations as findings or recommendations to fix. |
Only warn, block and off are recognized. Surface any other value to the
user and fall back to warn rather than guessing.
The value is locally overridable (
/settings --local performance.enforce=block), so use the resolved block above rather than readingproject.yaml— a teammate's stricter local setting is meant to bite on their machine only.
Phase 1: Determine Scope
Read the argument:
- System name → focus profiling on that specific system
full→ run a comprehensive profile across all systems
Phase 2: Load Performance Budgets
Read the committed budgets from config first — they are the project's record of what it agreed to, and design docs are the fallback, not the source:
source "${CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR:-.}/.claude/hooks/yaml-helper.sh" 2>/dev/null
get_effective_yaml_key performance.target_framerate
get_effective_yaml_key performance.frame_budget_ms
get_effective_yaml_key performance.draw_call_limit
get_effective_yaml_key performance.memory_ceiling_mb
Written as four literal keys rather than a loop over leaf names, deliberately. The dead-settings audit matches the full dotted key, so a loop building
performance.$kleaves three of the four spelled nowhere and the audit reports them DEAD while this skill reads them. Spell each key out in full.
Resolve these budgets from
project.yaml, not from prose. Phase 0 above states these four budgets "are profiled the same way at every level". Sending the reader to "design docs or CLAUDE.md" instead means a user who setperformance.target_framerate: 60inproject.yamlhas it ignored by the one skill that profiles against budgets. The keys resolve correctly — this phase has to actually ask for them.
Then fall back to design docs or CLAUDE.md for anything config does not carry:
- Target FPS (e.g., 60fps = 16.67ms frame budget)
- Memory budget (total and per-system)
- Load time targets
- Draw call budgets
- Network bandwidth limits (if multiplayer)
A metric with no committed budget is NOT ASSESSED, not a pass. Do not
measure against the template's [16.67ms] placeholder — an unset budget is not
a budget that was met, and reporting headroom against a number nobody chose is
the exact fabrication this skill's own header warns about.
Phase 3: Analyze Codebase
CPU Profiling Targets:
_process()/Update()/Tick()functions — list all and estimate cost- Nested loops over large collections
- String operations in hot paths
- Allocation patterns in per-frame code
- Unoptimized search/sort over game entities
- Expensive physics queries (raycasts, overlaps) every frame
Memory Profiling Targets:
- Large data structures and their growth patterns
- Texture/asset memory footprint estimates
- Object pool vs instantiate/destroy patterns
- Leaked references (objects that should be freed but aren't)
- Cache sizes and eviction policies
Rendering Targets (if applicable):
- Draw call estimates
- Overdraw from overlapping transparent objects
- Shader complexity
- Unoptimized particle systems
- Missing LODs or occlusion culling
I/O Targets:
- Save/load performance
- Asset loading patterns (sync vs async)
- Network message frequency and size
Phase 4: Generate Profiling Report
Write the report to production/polish/[scope]-report-[date].md, asking first
per the Collaboration Protocol: "May I write this profiling report to
production/polish/[scope]-report-[date].md?" Create the directory if absent.
Name the destination — do not just render the template into the conversation. A profile that lives only in the transcript is gone the moment the session ends, and no two runs can be compared.
production/polish/is the same location/team-polishwrites, deliberately: a profile taken by either route belongs in one place, or the comparison this skill exists to enable cannot be made.If a
NOT ASSESSEDsection survives into the report, keep it in the written file. A profile whose gaps are edited out on the way to disk reads, later, as a complete measurement.
## Performance Profile: [System or Full]
Generated: [Date]
### Performance Budgets
| Metric | Budget | Estimated Current | Status |
|--------|--------|-------------------|--------|
| Frame time | [16.67ms] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
| Memory | [target] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
| Load time | [target] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
| Draw calls | [target] | [estimate] | [OK/WARNING/OVER] |
### Hotspots Identified
| # | Location | Issue | Estimated Impact | Fix Effort |
|---|----------|-------|------------------|------------|
### Optimization Recommendations (Priority Order)
1. **[Title]** — [Description]
- Location: [file:line]
- Expected gain: [estimate]
- Risk: [Low/Med/High]
- Approach: [How to implement]
### Quick Wins (< 1 hour each)
- [Simple optimization 1]
### Requires Investigation
- [Area that needs actual runtime profiling to confirm impact]
Output the report with a summary: top 3 hotspots, estimated headroom vs budget, and recommended next action.
Phase 5: Scope and Timeline Decision
Activate this phase only if any hotspot has Fix Effort rated M or L.
Present significant-effort items and ask the user to choose for each:
- A) Implement the optimization (proceed with fix now or schedule it)
- B) Reduce feature scope (run
/scope-check [feature]to analyze trade-offs) - C) Accept the performance hit and defer to Polish phase (log as known issue)
- D) Escalate to technical-director for an architectural decision (run
/architecture-decision)
If multiple items are deferred to Polish (choice C), record them under ### Deferred to Polish.
This skill is read-only — no files are written. Verdict: COMPLETE — performance profile generated.
Phase 6: Next Steps
- If bottlenecks require architectural change: run
/architecture-decision. - If scope reduction is needed: run
/scope-check [feature]. - To schedule optimizations: run
/sprint-plan update.
Rules
- Never optimize without measuring first — gut feelings about performance are unreliable
- Recommendations must include estimated impact — "make it faster" is not actionable
- Profile on target hardware, not just development machines
- Static analysis (this skill) identifies candidates; runtime profiling confirms
Version History
-
7ed2c3e
Current 2026-09-28 04:03
重构配置解析逻辑为单一命令以解决权限检查失败问题;增强输入数据存在性校验,防止无数据时的虚假通过;明确预算违规的处理策略。
- 984023d 2026-07-25 09:37


