validating-performance-budgets
Validate application performance against defined budgets to identify regressions early. Use when checking page load times, bundle sizes, or API response times against thresholds. Trigger with phrases like "validate performance budget", "check performance metrics", or "detect performance regression".
46
50%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./plugins/performance/performance-budget-validator/skills/validating-performance-budgets/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a well-crafted skill description that clearly communicates its purpose, provides specific concrete actions, and includes explicit trigger guidance. It covers the what, when, and how-to-trigger dimensions effectively, with natural keywords that users would actually use. The description is concise without being vague, and it occupies a distinct niche that minimizes conflict risk with other skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: validate application performance against budgets, check page load times, bundle sizes, API response times against thresholds, and detect performance regressions. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (validate application performance against defined budgets to identify regressions) and 'when' (checking page load times, bundle sizes, API response times) with explicit trigger phrases provided. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'validate performance budget', 'check performance metrics', 'detect performance regression', 'page load times', 'bundle sizes', 'API response times'. These cover common variations of how users would phrase performance-related requests. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche around performance budget validation specifically, with distinct triggers like 'performance budget', 'performance regression', and specific metrics (bundle sizes, page load times). This is unlikely to conflict with general testing or monitoring skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is almost entirely descriptive and abstract, reading more like a marketing overview than actionable instructions for Claude. It lacks any concrete code, commands, configuration schemas, or executable examples. The content is heavily padded with sections explaining obvious concepts while failing to provide the specific technical guidance needed to actually validate performance budgets.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract 'Examples' section with concrete, executable code showing how to run Lighthouse, parse results, and compare against budget thresholds (e.g., actual CLI commands and Python/JS scripts).
Provide a concrete JSON schema for performance-budgets.json with a realistic example configuration file.
Remove the 'Overview', 'How It Works', 'When to Use This Skill', 'Best Practices', 'Integration', and 'Resources' sections entirely—they explain concepts Claude already knows and add no actionable value.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow (e.g., 'verify config file parses correctly before collecting metrics') and include a feedback loop for handling budget violations.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive sections explaining concepts Claude already knows (what performance budgets are, when to use them, best practices). The 'Overview', 'How It Works', 'When to Use This Skill', 'Best Practices', 'Integration', and 'Resources' sections are all filler that add no actionable value. The content could be reduced by 70%+ without losing useful information. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code, commands, or executable examples anywhere. The 'Examples' section describes what the skill 'will do' in abstract terms rather than showing actual commands, scripts, or configuration formats. No sample performance-budgets.json schema, no Lighthouse commands, no bundle analysis code—everything is vague description. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Instructions' section lists 6 abstract steps with no concrete commands, no validation checkpoints, and no feedback loops. Steps like 'Collect current performance metrics' and 'Compare metrics against defined budget thresholds' give no indication of how to actually perform these actions. Error handling is a generic checklist with no actionable recovery steps. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files despite mentioning a performance-budgets.json config file. No bundle files are provided to support the content. The document has many sections but they are all shallow and repetitive rather than being well-organized with clear navigation to deeper content. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
6e9558f
- 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.