CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

axiom-profile-performance

Use when the user wants automated performance profiling, headless Instruments analysis, or CLI-based trace collection.

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./axiom-codex/skills/axiom-profile-performance/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is an exemplary operational skill: exact commands, a complete record/analyze/report sequence with explicit validation and consent gates, honest status reporting, and a concrete error-recovery table. The only real slack is minor redundancy around the consent rules and the boilerplate invocation-example block.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — preset mapping tables, exact commands, gates, error tables — with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor instances could be trimmed: the five near-identical Invocation Examples, the repeated consent-gate rules ('not to clear a refused recording, not as an error-recovery retry, not to save a round-trip'), and the Scope section restating the description. This matches 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than level 5, where every token earns its place.

4 / 5

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands throughout: 'command -v xcprof && xcprof doctor', 'export XCPROF_TRACE_ROOT="$(mktemp -d)"', simctl discovery with jq, a user-intent-to-invocation table with exact flags and time limits, and a symptom/cause/fix error table. Parameter placeholders ('<app>', "<trace>") are appropriately explicit. This matches 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (pick target → record → analyze → report) with explicit validation checkpoints: 'doctor' readiness verification, '--dry-run' preview, reading the ok/notes fields, and the support-status honesty gate before calling anything clean. Feedback loops are present in the Error handling table (symptom → cause → fix) and the hang-window re-scope loop. Destructive operations are explicitly guarded (no 'rm -rf' of trace dirs; consent required before gated flags). This matches 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and the body's pointers — 'axiom-tools (skills/xcprof-ref.md)', 'axiom-performance (skills/trace-comparison.md)', etc. — are clearly signaled one-level-deep cross-skill references collected in a Related section. Structure is good with well-labeled sections. It is not level 5 because some inlined content (the full Comparison/CI-gating section, the Invocation Examples block, detailed flag semantics) could be split out or trimmed, leaving minor organization gaps; it is well above level 3 since nothing is buried and navigation is easy.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

43%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is distinctive and reasonably trigger-focused, but it is a trigger-only clause: it never states what the skill actually does, and its keyword coverage misses the natural phrases (CPU, memory leaks, Time Profiler, slow) users most often use. It reads as a 'when' without a 'what'.

Suggestions

Lead with a third-person 'what' statement of concrete actions, e.g. 'Records headless performance traces with xcprof, analyzes them, and produces structured support-matrix and hot-frame reports', followed by the existing 'Use when...' clause.

Add the natural trigger terms users actually say, which the Invocation Examples section already demonstrates: 'CPU usage', 'memory leaks', 'Time Profiler', 'slow app', 'optimize', 'launch time'.

Mirror the trigger phrasing of the invocation examples ('Profile my app's CPU usage', 'Run Time Profiler') so the description's keywords match real user phrasing rather than tool-centric nouns like 'CLI-based trace collection'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names its domain ("automated performance profiling, headless Instruments analysis, or CLI-based trace collection") but states no actions the skill performs (e.g., recording traces, analyzing them, producing reports) — noun phrases describing the domain, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is not level 3 because a level-3 description would list 1-2 concrete actions the skill carries out, and here the 'what' is only inferred from the trigger clause.

2 / 5

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present ("Use when the user wants automated performance profiling...") without any explicit 'what' — the description never states what the skill does, exactly matching the anchor branch 'only when is present without what'. It is not level 3 because that anchor requires a clear 'what' (like 'Extract text and tables from PDF files'), which is only weakly inferable here; scoring only what is explicitly stated, the 'what' is missing.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("performance profiling", "Instruments", "trace") but common natural variations users actually say are missing — e.g. "CPU", "memory leaks", "Time Profiler", "slow app", "optimize" — matching 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. It is not level 4 because the coverage gaps are more than 'a few' (the words users most often lead with, like CPU or leaks, are absent); it is above level 2 because multiple domain-specific natural terms (Instruments, profiling, trace) do appear.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description occupies a clear niche — headless Apple Instruments/xctrace profiling via CLI — with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk with generic profiling or analysis skills. It matches 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' exactly.

5 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

CharlesWiltgen/Axiom

Path

axiom-codex/skills/axiom-profile-performance/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.