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".
57
50%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
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 defines its purpose, lists concrete actions and metrics it handles, and provides explicit trigger guidance with natural user phrases. It follows the recommended pattern of 'what it does' + 'Use when' + trigger phrases, making it easy for Claude to select appropriately from a large skill set.
| 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' (explicit 'Use when' clause with specific scenarios plus a 'Trigger with phrases' clause listing exact trigger terms). | 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 such requests. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Occupies a clear niche around performance budget validation with distinct triggers like 'performance budget', 'performance regression', and specific metrics (bundle sizes, page load times). 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 product marketing page than actionable instructions for Claude. It lacks any concrete code, configuration examples, CLI commands, or executable guidance. The content is heavily padded with sections that explain obvious concepts and repeat information without adding value.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract examples with concrete, executable code: show an actual performance-budgets.json schema, a real Lighthouse CLI command (`npx lighthouse --output=json`), and code to parse and compare results against thresholds.
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 a concrete workflow with validation checkpoints, e.g.: 1) Load budget JSON (show schema), 2) Run `npx lighthouse URL --output=json` (show command), 3) Parse results and compare (show code), 4) If violations found, output specific format (show example output).
Provide a complete example of the performance-budgets.json configuration file with actual metric names, threshold values, and units so Claude knows exactly what format to expect and produce.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Extremely verbose with extensive sections explaining concepts Claude already knows (what performance budgets are, when to use them, best practices that are generic). The 'Overview' and 'How It Works' sections restate the title. 'When to Use This Skill' repeats the description. 'Best Practices', 'Integration', and 'Resources' sections add no actionable value. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | No concrete code, commands, configuration schemas, or executable examples anywhere. The examples describe what the skill 'will do' in abstract terms rather than showing actual commands, code snippets, or JSON budget file formats. The 'Instructions' section is a vague numbered list with no specifics on how to actually collect metrics or compare them. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Instructions' section lists 6 steps but none have concrete commands, validation checkpoints, or feedback loops. There's no guidance on what to do when a step fails beyond the generic 'Error Handling' checklist. For a skill involving validation against thresholds, there are no actual threshold examples or comparison logic shown. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Monolithic wall of text with no references to external files despite mentioning a performance-budgets.json file. All sections are inline regardless of importance. No clear hierarchy between essential quick-start content and supplementary material. The 'Resources' section lists topics with no actual links. | 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
c8a915c
- 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.