cloudthinker-ai Performance Budget Check Skill
Evaluate performance budget compliance for {{ application_name }}.
Workflow
Phase 1 — Budget Definition
PERFORMANCE BUDGETS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Core Web Vitals:
LCP (Largest Contentful Paint): target {{ target_lcp }}ms | actual ___ms
FID (First Input Delay): target 100ms | actual ___ms
CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift): target 0.1 | actual ___
INP (Interaction to Next Paint): target 200ms | actual ___ms
Bundle Size:
Main bundle: target {{ target_bundle_size }}KB | actual ___KB
Total JS: target ___KB | actual ___KB
Total CSS: target ___KB | actual ___KB
Total images: target ___KB | actual ___KB
API Latency:
P50: target ___ms | actual ___ms
P95: target ___ms | actual ___ms
P99: target ___ms | actual ___ms
Time to Interactive: target ___ms | actual ___ms
Phase 2 — Measurement
MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Lab data collected:
[ ] Lighthouse CI run
[ ] WebPageTest
[ ] Bundle analyzer
[ ] Field data collected:
[ ] RUM (Real User Monitoring)
[ ] CrUX (Chrome User Experience Report)
[ ] Test conditions:
- Network: [ ] 4G [ ] 3G [ ] Cable
- Device: [ ] Mobile [ ] Desktop
- Region: ___
Phase 3 — Budget Compliance
COMPLIANCE CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Metric | Budget | Actual | Status | Delta
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━|━━━━━━━━|━━━━━━━━|━━━━━━━━━━━|━━━━━━
LCP | | | PASS/FAIL |
FID | | | PASS/FAIL |
CLS | | | PASS/FAIL |
INP | | | PASS/FAIL |
Main bundle size | | | PASS/FAIL |
Total JS | | | PASS/FAIL |
API P95 latency | | | PASS/FAIL |
TTI | | | PASS/FAIL |
Overall: ___ / ___ budgets met
Phase 4 — Regression Analysis
REGRESSION DETECTION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Compare against previous release:
- Metrics improved: ___
- Metrics unchanged: ___
- Metrics regressed: ___
[ ] Top regressions (if any):
1. ___ : ___ms/KB increase (caused by ___)
2. ___ : ___ms/KB increase (caused by ___)
3. ___ : ___ms/KB increase (caused by ___)
[ ] Bundle size diff:
- New dependencies added: ___
- Largest new chunks: ___
- Tree-shaking opportunities: ___
Phase 5 — Optimization Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Priority | Recommendation | Expected Impact
HIGH | ___ | ___
HIGH | ___ | ___
MEDIUM | ___ | ___
MEDIUM | ___ | ___
LOW | ___ | ___
Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "We can skip some steps for this case" | Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them | Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate |
| "The user seems to already know what to do" | Complete all workflow phases with the user | The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses |
| "This is a minor case, full process is overkill" | Scale the process down, don't turn it off | Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears |
| "I'll fill in the details later" | Complete each section before moving on | Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate |
| "The template output isn't necessary" | Always produce the structured output format | Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams |
Output Format
Produce a performance budget report with:
- Budget scorecard (all metrics with pass/fail status)
- Regression analysis (changes from previous release)
- Top issues (budget violations ranked by severity)
- Optimization recommendations (prioritized action items)
- Trend data (performance trajectory over recent releases)