# Lading Optimize Review

> Reviews optimization patches using a 5-persona peer review system. Requires unanimous approval backed by benchmarks.

- Skill: `datadog/lading-optimize-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add datadog/lading-optimize-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/datadog/lading-optimize-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: datadog (https://skillmd.com/u/datadog)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/datadog/lading-optimize-review

---


# Optimization Patch Review

A rigorous 5-persona peer review system for optimization patches in lading. Requires unanimous approval backed by concrete benchmark data. **Duplicate Hunter persona prevents redundant work.**

## Role: Judge

**Review is the decision-maker. It does NOT record results.**

Review judges using benchmarks and 5-persona review, then returns a structured report.

## Outcomes

| Outcome | Votes | Action |
|---------|-------|--------|
| **APPROVED** | 5/5 APPROVE | Return APPROVED report |
| **REJECTED** | Any REJECT | Return REJECTED report |

---

## Arguments

This skill requires 5 positional arguments passed by the caller:

| Arg | Field | Example | Used for |
|-----|-------|---------|----------|
| `$ARGUMENTS[0]` | bench | `trace_agent` | `cargo criterion --bench` flag |
| `$ARGUMENTS[1]` | fingerprint | `ci/fingerprints/trace_agent_v04/lading.yaml` | payloadtool config path |
| `$ARGUMENTS[2]` | file | `lading_payload/src/trace_agent/v04.rs` | report + duplicate check |
| `$ARGUMENTS[3]` | target | `V04::to_bytes` | report |
| `$ARGUMENTS[4]` | technique | `buffer-reuse` | report + duplicate check |

**If any argument is missing -> REJECT. All 5 are required.**

### Generate Report ID

Derive the `id` from the file and technique arguments:
1. Take the filename stem from `$ARGUMENTS[2]` (e.g. `lading_payload/src/trace_agent/v04.rs` → `trace-agent-v04`)
2. Append the technique `$ARGUMENTS[4]` (e.g. `buffer-reuse`)
3. Join with `-` → `trace-agent-v04-buffer-reuse`

Use this `id` in the report.

---

## Phase 1: Benchmark Execution

### Step 1: Read Baseline Data

Read the baseline benchmark files captured:

- `/tmp/criterion-baseline.log` — micro-benchmark baseline
- `/tmp/baseline.json` — macro-benchmark timing baseline
- `/tmp/baseline-mem.txt` — macro-benchmark memory baseline

**If baseline data is missing -> REJECT. Baselines must be captured before any code change and before this gets invoked.**

### Step 2: Run Post-Change Micro-benchmarks

```bash
cargo criterion --bench $ARGUMENTS[0] 2>&1 | tee /tmp/criterion-optimized.log
```

Note: Criterion automatically compares against the last run and reports percentage changes.

Compare results — look for "change:" lines showing improvement/regression.

Example output: `time: [1.2345 ms 1.2456 ms 1.2567 ms] change: [-5.1234% -4.5678% -4.0123%]`

### Step 3: Run Post-Change Macro-benchmarks

```bash
cargo build --release --bin payloadtool
hyperfine --warmup 3 --runs 30 --export-json /tmp/optimized.json \
  "./target/release/payloadtool $ARGUMENTS[1]"
./target/release/payloadtool "$ARGUMENTS[1]" --memory-stats 2>&1 | tee /tmp/optimized-mem.txt
```

### Statistical Requirements

- Minimum 30 runs for hyperfine (`--runs 30`)
- Criterion handles statistical significance internally
- Time improvement >= 5% for significance
- Memory improvement >= 10% for significance
- Allocation reduction >= 20% for significance

### NO EXCEPTIONS

- "Test dependencies don't work" -> REJECT. Fix dependencies first.
- "Theoretically better" -> REJECT. Prove it with numbers.
- "Obviously an improvement" -> REJECT. Obvious is not measured.
- "Will benchmark later" -> REJECT. Benchmark now.

---

## Phase 2: Five-Persona Review

### 1. Duplicate Hunter (Checks for Redundant Work)
- [ ] Check `.claude/skills/lading-optimize-hunt/assets/db.yaml` for `$ARGUMENTS[2]` + `$ARGUMENTS[4]` combo
- [ ] File + technique combo not already approved
- [ ] No substantially similar optimization exists
- [ ] If duplicate found -> REJECT with "DUPLICATE: see <existing entry>"

### 2. Skeptic (Demands Proof)
- [ ] Baseline data verified present
- [ ] Post-change benchmarks executed with identical methodology
- [ ] Hot path verified via profiling (not just guessed)
- [ ] Micro threshold met (>=5% time)
- [ ] Macro threshold met (>=5% time OR >=10% mem OR >=20% allocs)
- [ ] Statistical significance confirmed (p<0.05 or criterion "faster")
- [ ] Improvement is real, not measurement noise
- [ ] Benchmark methodology sound (same config, same machine)

### 3. Conservative (Guards Correctness)
- [ ] Run `ci/validate` and validate that it passes completely
- [ ] No semantic changes to output
- [ ] **Determinism preserved** (same seed -> same output)
- [ ] No `.unwrap()` or `.expect()` added (lading MUST NOT panic)
- [ ] **No bugs introduced** (if bug found -> REJECT with bug details)
- [ ] Property tests exist for changed code

### 4. Rust Expert (Lading-Specific Patterns)
- [ ] No `mod.rs` files (per CLAUDE.md)
- [ ] All `use` statements at file top (not inside functions)
- [ ] Format strings use named variables (`"{index}"` not `"{}"`)
- [ ] Pre-computation in initialization, not hot paths
- [ ] Worst-case behavior considered, not just average-case
- [ ] No unnecessary cloning or allocation in hot paths

### 5. Greybeard (Simplicity Judge)
- [ ] Code still readable without extensive comments
- [ ] Complexity justified by measured improvement
- [ ] "Obviously fast" pattern, not clever trick
- [ ] Follows 3-repeat abstraction rule (no premature abstraction)
- [ ] Change is minimal - no scope creep

---

## Phase 3: Kani/Property Test Check

If the optimization touches critical code:

### For lading_throttle:
```bash
ci/kani lading_throttle
```

### For lading_payload:
```bash
ci/kani lading_payload
```

**Kani constraints:**
- Kani proofs are more complete but labor-intensive
- Kani may not compile complex code
- Kani runs are EXTREMELY slow for complex code

**If Kani fails to run:**
1. Document why (compilation error? timeout?)
2. Verify comprehensive property tests exist instead
3. This is acceptable - Kani feasibility varies

---

## Phase 4: Decision

| Outcome | Votes | Action |
|---------|-------|--------|
| **APPROVED** | 5/5 APPROVE | Return APPROVED report |
| **REJECTED** | Any REJECT | Return REJECTED report |

Duplicates, bugs, correctness issues, and missing benchmarks are all rejections. Describe the specific reason in the report's `reason` field.

---

## Phase 5: Return Report

**Review does NOT record results and does NOT create files. Return a structured YAML report to the caller.**

Fill in the appropriate template and return the completed YAML:

| Verdict   | Template                                                               |
| --------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| approved  | `.claude/skills/lading-optimize-review/assets/approved.template.yaml`  |
| rejected  | `.claude/skills/lading-optimize-review/assets/rejected.template.yaml`  |

1. Read the appropriate template from the `.claude/skills/lading-optimize-review/assets/` directory
2. Fill in placeholders using argument values:
   - `id` → generated ID (see "Generate Report ID" above)
   - `target` → `$ARGUMENTS[2]:$ARGUMENTS[3]` (e.g. `lading_payload/src/trace_agent/v04.rs:V04::to_bytes`)
   - `technique` → `$ARGUMENTS[4]`
3. Fill remaining fields with actual benchmark data from the review
4. Return the filled-in report

---