Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

ln-811-performance-profiler(ln 811 性能分析器)

ln-811-performance-profiler 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

ln-811-performance-profiler 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为需要联网;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 33,102。

总安装 2,421周安装 97GitHub Stars 441下载 784核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:ln-811-performance-profiler(ln 811 性能分析器)
来源仓库:https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/ln-811-performance-profiler
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-811-performance-profiler
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-811-performance-profiler

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。ln-811-performance-profiler 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合根据关键词或任务场景快速定位候选结果。可结合来源仓库和原始 README 核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态。注意是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。

来源仓库内路径:skills/ln-811-performance-profiler

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-8…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

ln-811-performance-profiler 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills --skill ln-811-perform…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

ln-811-performance-profiler 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

ln-811-performance-profiler 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

ln-811-performance-profiler 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

ln-811-performance-profiler 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 2,421 次,近一周安装 97 次,下载 784 次,GitHub 441 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

ln-811-performance-profiler 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
ln-811-performance-profiler

ln 811 性能分析器 · 本页

2,421441需要联网未明确有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Paths: File paths (shared/, references/, ../ln-*) are relative to skills repo root. If not found at CWD, locate this SKILL.md directory and go up one level for repo root. If shared/ is missing, fetch files via WebFetch from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/levnikolaevich/claude-code-skills/master/skills/{path}.

ln-811-performance-profiler

Type: L3 Worker Category: 8XX Optimization

Runtime profiler that executes the optimization target, measures multiple metrics (CPU, memory, I/O, time), instruments code for per-function breakdown, and produces a standardized performance map from real data.


Overview

AspectDetails
InputProblem statement: target (file/endpoint/pipeline) + observed metric
OutputPerformance map (multi-metric, per-function), suspicion stack, bottleneck classification
PatternDiscover test → Baseline run → Static analysis → Deep profile → Performance map → Report

Workflow

Phases: Test Discovery → Baseline Run → Static Analysis → Deep Profile → Performance Map → Report


Phase 0: Test Discovery/Creation

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/ci_tool_detection.md for test framework detection. MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/benchmark_generation.md for auto-generating benchmarks when none exist.

Find or create commands that exercise the optimization target. Two outputs: test_command (profiling/measurement) and e2e_test_command (functional safety gate).

Step 1: Discover test_command

PriorityMethodAction
1User-providedUser specifies test command or API endpoint
2Discover existing E2E testGrep test files for target entry point (stop at first match)
3Create test scriptGenerate per shared/references/benchmark_generation.md to .hex-skills/optimization/{slug}/profile_test.sh

E2E discovery protocol (stop at first match):

PriorityMethodHow
1Route-based searchGrep e2e/integration test files for entry point route
2Function-based searchGrep for entry point function name
3Module-based searchGrep for import of entry point module

Test creation (if no existing test found):

Target TypeGenerated Script
API endpointcurl -w "%{time_total}" -o /dev/null -s {endpoint}
FunctionStack-specific benchmark per shared/references/benchmark_generation.md
PipelineFull pipeline invocation with test input

Step 2: Discover e2e_test_command

If test_command came from E2E discovery (Step 1 priority 2): e2e_test_command = test_command.

Otherwise, run E2E discovery protocol again (same 3-priority table) to find a separate functional safety test.

If not found: e2e_test_command = null, log: WARNING: No e2e test covers {entry_point}. Full test suite serves as functional gate.

Output

FieldDescription
test_commandCommand for profiling/measurement
e2e_test_commandCommand for functional safety gate (may equal test_command, or null)
e2e_test_sourceDiscovery method: user / route / function / module / none

Phase 1: Baseline Run (Multi-Metric)

Run test_command with system-level profiling. Capture simultaneously:

MetricHow to CaptureWhen
Wall timetime wrapper or test harnessAlways
CPU time (user+sys)/usr/bin/time -v or language profilerAlways
Memory peak (RSS)/usr/bin/time -v (Max RSS) or tracemalloc / process.memoryUsage()Always
I/O bytes/usr/bin/time -v or structured logsIf I/O suspected
HTTP round-tripsCount from structured logs or application metricsIf network I/O in call graph
GPU utilizationnvidia-smi --query-gpuOnly if CUDA/GPU detected in stack

Baseline Protocol

ParameterValue
Runs3
MetricMedian
Warm-up1 discarded run
Outputbaseline — multi-metric snapshot

Monitor for Profiler Runs (Claude Code 2.1.98+)

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/monitor_integration_pattern.md

During baseline and deep profile runs: Monitor(command="{test_command} 2>&1", timeout_ms=300000, description="profiler run N")

Detect crashes or infinite loops immediately. Fallback: Bash with timeout.


Phase 2: Static Analysis → Instrumentation Points

MANDATORY READ: Load bottleneck_classification.md

Trace call chain from code + build suspicion stack. Purpose: guide WHERE to instrument in Phase 3.

Step 1: Trace Call Chain

Starting from entry point, trace depth-first (max depth 5). At each step, READ the full function body.

Cross-service tracing: If service_topology is available from coordinator and a step makes an HTTP/gRPC call to another service whose code is accessible:

SituationAction
HTTP call to service with code in submodule/monorepoFollow into that service's handler: resolve route → trace handler code (depth resets to 0 for the new service)
HTTP call to service without accessible codeClassify as External, record latency estimate
gRPC/message queue to known serviceSame as HTTP — follow into handler if code accessible

Record service: "{service_name}" on each step to track which service owns it. The performance_map steps tree can span multiple services.

Depth-First Rule: If code of the called service is accessible — ALWAYS profile INSIDE. NEVER classify an accessible service as "External/slow" without profiling its internals. "Slow" is a symptom, not a diagnosis.

5 Whys for each bottleneck: Before reporting a bottleneck, chain "why?" until you reach config/architecture level:

  1. "What is slow?" → alignment service (5.9s) 2. "Why?" → 6 pairs × ~1s each 3. "Why ~1s per pair?" → O(n²) mwmf computation 4. "Why O(n²)?" → library default, not production config 5. "Why default?" → matching_methods not configured → root cause = config

Step 2: Classify & Suspicion Scan

For each step, classify by type (CPU, I/O-DB, I/O-Network, I/O-File, Architecture, External, Cache) and scan for performance concerns.

Suspicion checklist (minimum, not limitation):

CategoryWhat to Look For
Connection managementClient created per-request? Missing pooling? Missing reuse?
Data flowData read multiple times? Over-fetching? Unnecessary transforms?
Async patternsSync I/O in async context? Sequential awaits without data dependency?
Resource lifecycleUnclosed connections? Temp files? Memory accumulation in loop?
ConfigurationHardcoded timeouts? Default pool sizes? Missing batch size config?
Redundant workSame validation at multiple layers? Same data loaded twice?
ArchitectureN+1 in loop? Batch API unused? Cache infra unused? Sequential-when-parallel?
*(open)*Anything else spotted — checklist does not limit findings

Step 2b: Suspicion Deduplication

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/output_normalization.md

After generating suspicions across all call chain steps, normalize and deduplicate per §1-§2:

  • Normalize suspicion descriptions (replace specific values with placeholders)
  • Group identical suspicions across different steps → merge into single entry with affected_steps: [list]
  • Example: "Missing connection pooling" found in steps 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 → one suspicion with affected_steps: ["1.1", "1.2", "1.3"]

Step 3: Verify & Map to Instrumentation Points

FOR each suspicion:
  1. VERIFY: follow code to confirm or dismiss
  2. VERDICT: CONFIRMED → map to instrumentation point | DISMISSED → log reason
  3. For each CONFIRMED suspicion, identify:
     - function to wrap with timing
     - I/O call to count
     - memory allocation to track

Profiler Selection (per stack)

StackNon-invasive profilerInvasive (if non-invasive insufficient)
Pythonpy-spy, cProfiletime.perf_counter() decorators
Node.jsclinic, --profconsole.time() wrappers
Gopprof (built-in)Usually not needed
.NETdotnet-traceStopwatch wrappers
Rustcargo flamegraphstd::time::Instant

Stack detection: per shared/references/ci_tool_detection.md.


Phase 3: Deep Profile

Profiler Hierarchy (escalate as needed)

LevelTool ExamplesWhat It ShowsWhen to Use
1py-spy, cProfile, pprof, dotnet-traceFunction-level hotspotsAlways — first pass
2line_profiler, per-line timingLine-level timing in hotspot functionHotspot function found but cause unclear
3tracemalloc, memory_profilerPer-line memory allocationMemory metrics abnormal in baseline

Step 1: Non-Invasive Profiling (preferred)

Run test_command with Level 1 profiler to get per-function breakdown without code changes.

Step 2: Escalation Decision

After Level 1 profiler run, evaluate result against suspicion stack from Phase 2:

Profiler ResultAction
Hotspot function identified, time breakdown confirms suspicionsDONE — proceed to Phase 4
Hotspot identified but internal cause unclear (CPU vs I/O inside one function)Escalate to Level 2 (line-level timing)
Memory baseline abnormal (peak or delta)Escalate to Level 3 (memory profiler)
Multiple suspicions unresolved — profiler granularity insufficientGo to Step 3 (targeted instrumentation)
Profiler unavailable or overhead > 20% of wall timeGo to Step 3 (targeted instrumentation)

Stop Conditions (Profiler Escalation)

ConditionAction
Hotspot identified with clear causeSTOP — proceed to Performance Map
All 3 profiler levels exhaustedSTOP — build map from best available data
Instrumentation breaks testsSTOP — revert instrumentation, use non-invasive data only
Profiler overhead > 20% of wall timeSTOP — skip to targeted instrumentation

Step 3: Targeted Instrumentation (proactive)

Add timing/logging along the call stack at instrumentation points identified in Phase 2 Step 3:

1. FOR each CONFIRMED suspicion without measured data:
     Add timing wrapper around target function/I/O call
     Add counter for I/O round-trips if network/DB suspected
     (cross-service: instrument in the correct service's codebase)
2. Re-run test_command (3 runs, median)
3. Collect per-function measurements from logs
4. Record list of instrumented files (may span multiple services)
Instrumentation TypeWhenExample
Timing wrapperAlways for unresolved suspicionstime.perf_counter() around function call
I/O call counterNetwork or DB bottleneck suspectedCount HTTP requests, DB queries in loop
Memory snapshotMemory accumulation suspectedtracemalloc.get_traced_memory() before/after

KEEP instrumentation in place. The executor reuses it for post-optimization per-function comparison, then cleans up after strike. Report instrumented_files in output.


Phase 4: Build Performance Map

Standardized format — feeds into .hex-skills/optimization/{slug}/context.md for downstream consumption.

performance_map:
  test_command: "uv run pytest tests/automated/e2e/test_example.py -s"
  baseline:
    wall_time_ms: 7280
    cpu_time_ms: 850
    memory_peak_mb: 256
    memory_delta_mb: 45
    io_read_bytes: 1200000
    io_write_bytes: 500000
    http_round_trips: 13
  steps:                          # service field present only in multi-service topology
    - id: "1"
      function: "process_job"
      location: "app/services/job_processor.py:45"
      service: "api"             # optional — which service owns this step
      wall_time_ms: 7200
      time_share_pct: 99
      type: "function_call"
      children:
        - id: "1.1"
          function: "translate_binary"
          wall_time_ms: 7100
          type: "function_call"
          children:
            - id: "1.1.1"
              function: "tikal_extract"
              service: "tikal"   # cross-service: code traced into submodule
              wall_time_ms: 2800
              type: "http_call"
              http_round_trips: 1
            - id: "1.1.2"
              function: "mt_translate"
              service: "mt-engine"
              wall_time_ms: 3500
              type: "http_call"
              http_round_trips: 13
  bottleneck_classification: "I/O-Network"
  bottleneck_detail: "13 sequential HTTP calls to MT service (3500ms)"
  top_bottlenecks:
    - step: "1.1.2", type: "I/O-Network", share: 48%
    - step: "1.1.1", type: "I/O-Network", share: 38%

Phase 5: Report

Report Structure

profile_result:
  entry_point_info:
    type: <string>                     # "api_endpoint" | "function" | "pipeline"
    location: <string>                 # file:line
    route: <string|null>               # API route (if endpoint)
    function: <string>                 # Entry point function name
  performance_map: <object>            # Full map from Phase 4
  bottleneck_classification: <string>  # Primary bottleneck type
  bottleneck_detail: <string>          # Human-readable description
  top_bottlenecks:
    - step, type, share, description
  optimization_hints:                  # CONFIRMED suspicions only (Phase 2)
    - hint with evidence
  suspicion_stack:                     # Full audit trail (confirmed + dismissed)
    - category: <string>
      location: <string>
      description: <string>
      verdict: <string>               # "confirmed" | "dismissed"
      evidence: <string>
      verification_note: <string>
  e2e_test:
    command: <string|null>             # E2E safety test command (from Phase 0)
    source: <string>                   # user / route / function / module / none
  instrumented_files: [<string>]       # Files with active instrumentation (empty if non-invasive only)
  wrong_tool_indicators: []            # Empty = proceed, non-empty = exit

Wrong Tool Indicators

IndicatorCondition
external_service_no_alternative90%+ measured time in external service, no batch/cache/parallel path
within_industry_normMeasured time within expected range for operation type
infrastructure_boundBottleneck is hardware (measured via system metrics)
already_optimizedCode already uses best patterns (confirmed by suspicion scan)

Error Handling

ErrorRecovery
Cannot resolve entry pointBlock: "file/function not found at {path}"
Test command fails on unmodified codeBlock: "test fails before profiling — fix test first"
Profiler not available for stackFall back to invasive instrumentation (Phase 3 Step 2)
Instrumentation breaks testsRevert immediately: git checkout --.
Call chain too deep (> 5 levels)Stop at depth 5, note truncation
Cannot classify step typeDefault to "Unknown", use measured time
No I/O detected (pure CPU)Classify as CPU, focus on algorithm profiling

References

  • bottleneck_classification.md — classification taxonomy
  • latency_estimation.md — latency heuristics (fallback for static-only mode)
  • shared/references/ci_tool_detection.md — stack/tool detection
  • shared/references/benchmark_generation.md — benchmark templates per stack

Runtime Summary Artifact

MANDATORY READ: Load shared/references/coordinator_summary_contract.md

Emit an optimization-worker summary envelope.

Managed mode:

  • ln-810 passes deterministic runId and exact summaryArtifactPath
  • write the summary to the provided summaryArtifactPath

Standalone mode:

  • omit runId and summaryArtifactPath
  • write .hex-skills/runtime-artifacts/runs/{run_id}/optimization-worker/ln-811--{identifier}.json

Definition of Done

  • Test command discovered or created for optimization target
  • E2E safety test discovered (or documented as unavailable)
  • Baseline measured: wall time, CPU, memory (3 runs, median)
  • Call graph traced and function bodies read
  • Suspicion stack built: each suspicion verified and mapped to instrumentation point
  • Deep profile completed (non-invasive preferred, invasive if needed)
  • Instrumented files reported (cleanup deferred to executor)
  • Performance map built in standardized format (real measurements)
  • Top 3 bottlenecks identified from measured data
  • Wrong tool indicators evaluated from real metrics
  • optimization_hints contain only CONFIRMED suspicions with measurement evidence
  • Report prepared with measured findings
  • Optimization profile artifact written to the shared location

Version: 3.0.0 Last Updated: 2026-03-15

平台分布

Codex

35.14%
按下载量换算275

Claude

34.3%
按下载量换算269

Cursor

19.21%
按下载量换算151

Gemini CLI

8.99%
按下载量换算70

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills