添加 claude code game studios 到项目
This commit is contained in:
panw
171
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/analysis/perf-profile.md
Normal file
171
CCGS Skill Testing Framework/skills/analysis/perf-profile.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
|
||||
# Skill Test Spec: /perf-profile
|
||||
|
||||
## Skill Summary
|
||||
|
||||
`/perf-profile` is a structured performance profiling workflow that identifies
|
||||
bottlenecks and recommends optimizations. If profiler data or performance logs
|
||||
are provided, it analyzes them directly. If not, it guides the user through a
|
||||
manual profiling checklist. No director gates are invoked. The skill asks
|
||||
"May I write to `production/qa/perf-[date].md`?" before persisting a report.
|
||||
Verdicts: WITHIN BUDGET, CONCERNS, or OVER BUDGET.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Static Assertions (Structural)
|
||||
|
||||
Verified automatically by `/skill-test static` — no fixture needed.
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Has required frontmatter fields: `name`, `description`, `argument-hint`, `user-invocable`, `allowed-tools`
|
||||
- [ ] Has ≥2 phase headings
|
||||
- [ ] Contains verdict keywords: WITHIN BUDGET, CONCERNS, OVER BUDGET
|
||||
- [ ] Contains "May I write" language (skill writes perf report)
|
||||
- [ ] Has a next-step handoff (what to do after performance findings are reviewed)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Director Gate Checks
|
||||
|
||||
None. Performance profiling is an advisory analysis skill; no gates are invoked.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Test Cases
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 1: Happy Path — Frame data provided, draw call spike found
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- User provides `production/qa/profiler-export-2026-03-15.json` with frame time data
|
||||
- Data shows: average frame time 14ms (within 16.6ms budget), but frames 42–48 spike to 28ms
|
||||
- Spike correlates with a scene with 450 draw calls (budget: 200)
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/perf-profile production/qa/profiler-export-2026-03-15.json`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill reads profiler data
|
||||
2. Skill identifies average frame time is within budget
|
||||
3. Skill identifies draw call spike on frames 42–48 (450 calls vs 200 budget)
|
||||
4. Verdict is CONCERNS (average OK, but spikes indicate an issue)
|
||||
5. Skill recommends batching or culling for the identified scene
|
||||
6. Skill asks "May I write to `production/qa/perf-2026-04-06.md`?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Spike frames are identified by frame number
|
||||
- [ ] Draw call count and budget are compared explicitly
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is CONCERNS when spikes exceed budget even if average is OK
|
||||
- [ ] At least one specific optimization recommendation is given
|
||||
- [ ] "May I write" prompt appears before writing report
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 2: No Profiler Data — Manual checklist output
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- User runs `/perf-profile` with no arguments
|
||||
- No profiler data files exist in `production/qa/`
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/perf-profile`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill finds no profiler data
|
||||
2. Skill outputs a manual profiling checklist for the user to work through:
|
||||
- Enable Godot profiler or target engine's profiler
|
||||
- Record a 60-second play session
|
||||
- Export frame time data
|
||||
- Note any dropped frames or hitches
|
||||
3. Skill asks user to provide data once collected before running analysis
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill does not crash or emit a verdict when no data is provided
|
||||
- [ ] Manual profiling checklist is output (actionable steps, not just an error)
|
||||
- [ ] No verdict is emitted (there is nothing to assess yet)
|
||||
- [ ] No files are written
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 3: Over Budget — Frame budget exceeded for target platform
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- Profiler data shows consistent 22ms frame times (target: 16.6ms for 60fps)
|
||||
- All frames exceed budget; no single spike — systemic issue
|
||||
- `technical-preferences.md` specifies target platform: PC, 60fps
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/perf-profile production/qa/profiler-export-2026-03-20.json`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill reads profiler data and technical preferences for performance budget
|
||||
2. All frames are over the 16.6ms budget
|
||||
3. Verdict is OVER BUDGET
|
||||
4. Skill outputs a prioritized optimization list (e.g., LOD system, shader complexity, physics tick rate)
|
||||
5. Skill asks "May I write" before writing report
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is OVER BUDGET when all or most frames exceed budget
|
||||
- [ ] Target frame budget is read from `technical-preferences.md` (not hardcoded)
|
||||
- [ ] Optimization priority list is provided, not just the raw verdict
|
||||
- [ ] "May I write" prompt appears before report write
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 4: Previous Perf Report Exists — Delta comparison
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- `production/qa/perf-2026-03-28.md` exists with prior results (avg 15ms, max 19ms)
|
||||
- New profiler export shows: avg 13ms, max 17ms
|
||||
- Both reports are for the same scene
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/perf-profile production/qa/profiler-export-2026-04-05.json`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill reads new profiler data
|
||||
2. Skill detects prior report for the same scene
|
||||
3. Skill computes deltas: avg improved 2ms, max improved 2ms
|
||||
4. Skill presents regression check: no regressions detected
|
||||
5. Verdict is WITHIN BUDGET; report notes improvement since last profile
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] Skill checks `production/qa/` for prior perf reports before writing
|
||||
- [ ] Delta comparison is shown (prior vs. current for key metrics)
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is WITHIN BUDGET when current metrics are within budget
|
||||
- [ ] Improvement trend is noted positively in the report
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Case 5: Gate Compliance — No gate; performance-analyst separate
|
||||
|
||||
**Fixture:**
|
||||
- Profiler data shows CONCERNS-level findings (some spikes)
|
||||
- `review-mode.txt` contains `full`
|
||||
|
||||
**Input:** `/perf-profile production/qa/profiler-export-2026-04-01.json`
|
||||
|
||||
**Expected behavior:**
|
||||
1. Skill analyzes profiler data; verdict is CONCERNS
|
||||
2. No director gate is invoked regardless of review mode
|
||||
3. Output notes: "For in-depth analysis, consider running `/perf-profile` with the performance-analyst agent"
|
||||
4. Skill asks "May I write" and writes report on user approval
|
||||
|
||||
**Assertions:**
|
||||
- [ ] No director gate is invoked in any review mode
|
||||
- [ ] Performance-analyst consultation is suggested (not mandated)
|
||||
- [ ] "May I write" prompt appears before report write
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is CONCERNS for spike-based findings
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Protocol Compliance
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Reads profiler data when provided; outputs checklist when not
|
||||
- [ ] Reads `technical-preferences.md` for target platform frame budget
|
||||
- [ ] Checks for prior perf reports to enable delta comparison
|
||||
- [ ] Always asks "May I write" before writing report
|
||||
- [ ] No director gates are invoked
|
||||
- [ ] Verdict is one of: WITHIN BUDGET, CONCERNS, OVER BUDGET
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage Notes
|
||||
|
||||
- Platform-specific profiling workflows (console, mobile) are not tested here;
|
||||
the checklist output in Case 2 would be platform-specific in practice.
|
||||
- The delta comparison in Case 4 assumes reports cover the same scene; cross-scene
|
||||
comparisons are not explicitly handled.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user