feat: refresh shared skills catalog
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
98bb35e6fb
commit
418792d1ec
49 files changed
+2273
-2390
No files matched your search
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: benchmark-refactor
|
||||
description: >
|
||||
Measure baselines, evaluate optimization candidates in isolated branches, and record MADRs for performance-critical refactoring.
|
||||
scope: global
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Benchmark-driven refactoring
|
||||
|
||||
**"The model proposes, but the engine measures."**
|
||||
Optimization and refactoring must never rely on theoretical claims or synthetic
|
||||
unit test speedups. Every performance-critical change must be empirically proven
|
||||
against a deterministic baseline.
|
||||
|
||||
## 4-Phase refactoring workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Baseline profiling
|
||||
Before altering any production code, establish and record the empirical baseline:
|
||||
1. Select the profiling harness appropriate for the stack:
|
||||
- Python: `pytest-benchmark`
|
||||
- Rust: `Criterion.rs`
|
||||
- CLI / Compiled binaries: `hyperfine`
|
||||
- C / C++: `google/benchmark`
|
||||
2. Run the suite under clean conditions to capture mean execution duration ($\mu$),
|
||||
standard deviation ($\sigma$), memory overhead, and throughput.
|
||||
3. Export the baseline as a machine-readable JSON artifact (e.g. `benchmark-baseline.json`).
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Hypothesis & candidate generation
|
||||
1. Formulate 2–3 discrete optimization strategies (e.g. vectorization, streaming iterators,
|
||||
in-memory caching).
|
||||
2. Implement each candidate in an isolated Git worktree or ephemeral branch
|
||||
(`candidate-a`, `candidate-b`). Do not mutate the baseline tree.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Differential benchmarking & elimination
|
||||
1. Execute the benchmark suite against each candidate under identical conditions.
|
||||
2. Apply strict statistical thresholds:
|
||||
- Candidate is valid only if it demonstrates statistically significant gain
|
||||
($p < 0.01$ and $\ge 15\%$ improvement in throughput or latency).
|
||||
- Zero regression across all unit, integration, and type checks.
|
||||
3. Immediately eliminate and hard-reset candidates that fail tests or fall below
|
||||
the performance threshold.
|
||||
4. Select the winning candidate balancing performance gain against code complexity.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Automated Architecture Decision Record (MADR)
|
||||
Refactoring without documentation produces code that future agents will revert.
|
||||
Formalize the decision by generating a Markdown Architectural Decision Record in
|
||||
`docs/adr/NNNN-[slug].md` using [the MADR template](references/madr-template.md).
|
||||
Commit the MADR alongside the refactored code and benchmark JSON outputs.
|
||||
Follow [shared verification](../../protocols/workflow.md#verification).
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user