Skip to main content الرئيسية المنشئون proffesor-for-testing agentic-qe performance-testing
performance-testing Profiles application performance under load using k6, Artillery, or JMeter to measure latency, throughput, and error rates. Use when planning load tests, stress tests, soak tests, benchmarking APIs, or identifying performance bottlenecks.
الانتقال إلى التثبيت سوق المهارات اكتشف واستكشف مهارات الذكاء الاصطناعي التي بناها المجتمع.
المهن ذات الصلة SOC
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
عرض تفاصيل Prompt يتجاوز الأمر المباشر Prompt المخصّص للمراجعة. افحص المصدر قبل تشغيله.
npx skills add https://github.com/proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe --skill performance-testingيبقى الأمر في سطر واحد. مرّر أفقيًا لمراجعته كاملًا قبل النسخ.
تفضّل نسخة محلية؟ نزّل الملفات المتاحة حاليًا لدى SkillsMP.
تحميل Zip جاري التحميل... المزيد من هذا المستودع Ruflo is a multi-agent orchestration platform for AI coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Copilot, Gemini, Amp, +12 more). Use this skill when the user wants to (1) install/init ruflo in a project, (2) run multi-agent swarms with hierarchical coordination, (3) use ruflo's 314+ MCP tools for memory, routing, hooks, sub-agents, or workflows, (4) check ruflo status/version/doctor health, or (5) discover which of ruflo's 30+ plugins fits their task.
Build dependency-aware execution plans for complex Agentic QE, Ruflo, integration, migration, or multi-stream engineering programs. Use when Codex must turn research or requirements into phased work, select a small AQE fleet, map critical paths and parallel streams, define acceptance gates, or sequence risky changes. Use aqe-plan-quality instead when the primary output is only a test or quality plan.
Conduct evidence-first technical research for Agentic QE, Ruflo, related ruvnet projects, or external tools. Use when Codex must investigate a repository, compare current upstream changes, trace dependencies and history, distinguish verified facts from inference, or synthesize findings into actionable engineering recommendations. Do not use for a simple known-answer lookup or an implementation-only task.
name performance-testing description Profiles application performance under load using k6, Artillery, or JMeter to measure latency, throughput, and error rates. Use when planning load tests, stress tests, soak tests, benchmarking APIs, or identifying performance bottlenecks. category specialized-testing priority high tokenEstimate 1100 agents ["qe-performance-tester","qe-quality-analyzer","qe-production-intelligence"] implementation_status optimized optimization_version 1 last_optimized "2025-12-02T00:00:00.000Z" dependencies [] quick_reference_card true tags ["performance","load-testing","stress-testing","scalability","k6","bottlenecks"] trust_tier 3 validation {"schema_path":"schemas/output.json","validator_path":"scripts/validate-config.json","eval_path":"evals/performance-testing.yaml"}
Performance Testing
<default_to_action>
When testing performance or planning load tests:
DEFINE SLOs: p95 response time, throughput, error rate targets
IDENTIFY critical paths: revenue flows, high-traffic pages, key APIs
CREATE realistic scenarios: user journeys, think time, varied data
EXECUTE with monitoring: CPU, memory, DB queries, network
ANALYZE bottlenecks and fix before production
Quick Test Type Selection:
Expected load validation → Load testing
Find breaking point → Stress testing
Sudden traffic spike → Spike testing
Memory leaks, resource exhaustion → Endurance/soak testing
Horizontal/vertical scaling → Scalability testing
Critical Success Factors:
Performance is a feature, not an afterthought
Test early and often, not just before release
Focus on user-impacting bottlenecks
</default_to_action>
Quick Reference Card
When to Use
Before major releases
After infrastructure changes
Before scaling events (Black Friday)
When setting SLAs/SLOs
Test Types
Type Purpose When Load Expected traffic Every release Stress Beyond capacity Quarterly Spike Sudden surge Before events Endurance Memory leaks After code changes Scalability Scaling validation Infrastructure changes
Key Metrics
Metric Target Why p95 response < 200ms User experience Throughput 10k req/min Capacity Error rate < 0.1% Reliability CPU < 70% Headroom Memory < 80%
Tools
k6 : Modern, JS-based, CI/CD friendlyJMeter : Enterprise, feature-richArtillery : Simple YAML configsGatling : Scala, great reporting
Agent Coordination
qe-performance-tester: Load test orchestrationqe-quality-analyzer: Results analysisqe-production-intelligence: Production comparison
Defining SLOs Bad: "The system should be fast"
Good: "p95 response time < 200ms under 1,000 concurrent users"
export const options = {
thresholds : {
http_req_duration : ['p(95)<200' ],
http_req_failed : ['rate<0.01' ],
},
};
Realistic Scenarios Bad: Every user hits homepage repeatedly
Good: Model actual user behavior
export default function (const action = Math .random ();
if (action < 0.4 ) browse ();
else if (action < 0.7 ) search ();
else if (action < 0.9 ) viewProduct ();
else checkout ();
sleep (randomInt (1 , 5 ));
}
Common Bottlenecks
Database Symptoms: Slow queries under load, connection pool exhaustion
Fixes: Add indexes, optimize N+1 queries, increase pool size, read replicas
N+1 Queries
const orders = await Order .findAll ();
for (const order of orders) {
const customer = await Customer .findById (order.customerId );
}
const orders = await Order .findAll ({ include : [Customer ] });
Synchronous Processing Problem: Blocking operations in request path (sending email during checkout)
Fix: Use message queues, process async, return immediately
Memory Leaks Detection: Endurance testing, memory profiling
Common causes: Event listeners not cleaned, caches without eviction
External Dependencies Solutions: Aggressive timeouts, circuit breakers, caching, graceful degradation
k6 CI/CD Example
import http from 'k6/http' ;
import { check, sleep } from 'k6' ;
export const options = {
stages : [
{ duration : '1m' , target : 50 },
{ duration : '3m' , target : 50 },
{ duration : '1m' , target : 0 },
],
thresholds : {
http_req_duration : ['p(95)<200' ],
http_req_failed : ['rate<0.01' ],
},
};
export default function (const res = http.get ('https://api.example.com/products' );
check (res, {
'status is 200' : (r ) => r.status === 200 ,
'response time < 200ms' : (r ) => r.timings .duration < 200 ,
});
sleep (1 );
}
- name: Run k6 test
uses: grafana/k6-action@v0.3.0
with:
filename: performance-test.js
Analyzing Results
Good Results Load: 1,000 users | p95: 180ms | Throughput: 5,000 req/s
Error rate: 0.05% | CPU: 65% | Memory: 70%
Problems Load: 1,000 users | p95: 3,500ms ❌ | Throughput: 500 req/s ❌
Error rate: 5% ❌ | CPU: 95% ❌ | Memory: 90% ❌
Root Cause Analysis
Correlate metrics: When response time spikes, what changes?
Check logs: Errors, warnings, slow queries
Profile code: Where is time spent?
Monitor resources: CPU, memory, disk
Trace requests: End-to-end flow
Anti-Patterns ❌ Anti-Pattern ✅ Better Testing too late Test early and often Unrealistic scenarios Model real user behavior 0 to 1000 users instantly Ramp up gradually No monitoring during tests Monitor everything No baseline Establish and track trends One-time testing Continuous performance testing
Agent-Assisted Performance Testing
await Task ("Load Test" , {
target : 'https://api.example.com' ,
scenarios : {
checkout : { vus : 100 , duration : '5m' },
search : { vus : 200 , duration : '5m' },
browse : { vus : 500 , duration : '5m' }
},
thresholds : {
'http_req_duration' : ['p(95)<200' ],
'http_req_failed' : ['rate<0.01' ]
}
}, "qe-performance-tester" );
await Task ("Analyze Bottlenecks" , {
testResults : perfTest,
metrics : ['cpu' , 'memory' , 'db_queries' , 'network' ]
}, "qe-performance-tester" );
await Task ("CI Performance Gate" , {
mode : 'smoke' ,
duration : '1m' ,
vus : 10 ,
failOn : { 'p95_response_time' : 300 , 'error_rate' : 0.01 }
}, "qe-performance-tester" );
Agent Coordination Hints
Memory Namespace aqe/performance/
├── results/* - Test execution results
├── baselines/* - Performance baselines
├── bottlenecks/* - Identified bottlenecks
└── trends/* - Historical trends
Fleet Coordination const perfFleet = await FleetManager .coordinate ({
strategy : 'performance-testing' ,
agents : [
'qe-performance-tester' ,
'qe-quality-analyzer' ,
'qe-production-intelligence' ,
'qe-deployment-readiness'
],
topology : 'sequential'
});
Pre-Production Checklist
Related Skills
Remember Performance is a feature: Test it like functionality
Test continuously: Not just before launch
Monitor production: Synthetic + real user monitoring
Fix what matters: Focus on user-impacting bottlenecks
Trend over time: Catch degradation early
With Agents: Agents automate load testing, analyze bottlenecks, and compare with production. Use agents to maintain performance at scale.
Run History After each performance test run, append results to run-history.json in this skill directory:
node -e "
const fs = require('fs');
const h = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('.claude/skills/performance-testing/run-history.json'));
h.runs.push({date: new Date().toISOString().split('T')[0], scenario: 'load', p95_ms: P95, throughput_rps: RPS, error_rate_pct: ERR});
fs.writeFileSync('.claude/skills/performance-testing/run-history.json', JSON.stringify(h, null, 2));
"
Read run-history.json before each run — compare with baselines. Alert if p95 increases >20% from baseline.
Gotchas
k6 scripts generated by agent often hardcode base URLs — use environment variables for portability
Load tests in containers hit resource limits before app limits — ensure container has 2x the resources of target
Agent forgets to include think time between requests — without it, load is unrealistically bursty
P95 vs P99 matters — agent defaults to averages which hide tail latency problems
Baseline comparison requires consistent environment — CI runner variance can cause 20%+ noise
