用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/cwilliams5/Alt-Tabby --skill review-test-speed命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Audit all lint-ignore suppressions for appropriateness and overuse
Pre-flight checklist — run high-signal review skills before a release
Discover functions that block the main thread, then micro-audit each for internal optimization opportunities
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | review-test-speed |
| description | Optimize AHK test suite speed without sacrificing reliability |
| user-invocable | true |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Enter planning mode. Analyze AHK test suite performance and find speed optimizations. Use parallelism where possible.
Scope: AHK tests only — unit tests, GUI tests, live tests, lifecycle tests. NOT static analysis checks (review-static-speed covers those) and NOT query tools (review-tool-speed covers those).
Run .\tests\test.ps1 --live --timing to get the hierarchical timing report. This is the ground truth for where time is spent.
The test suite is heavily parallelized into phases. Within a parallel phase, the slowest test determines the phase duration. Look for:
Launching AHK processes and compiled exes is expensive (~1–2s each). Look for:
The test suite uses WaitForFlag(&flag) for adaptive polling (see testing.md). Look for:
Sleep() calls that could be converted to polling with WaitForFlag or similarLive tests depend on compilation. Check:
testing.md pipeline model)For any test file that is a phase bottleneck, check whether it can be logically split:
tests/bench_unit_split.ps1 to measure AHK startup overhead vs per-file test timeThis suite is designed for automated agentic execution — no user interaction, no prompts, cursor suppression, icon suppression. Any new or modified tests MUST follow existing patterns in test_utils.ahk:
_Test_RunSilent(cmdLine) for process launchingWaitForFlag(&flag) for adaptive pollingAfter explore agents report back, validate every finding yourself.
For each candidate optimization:
file.ahk lines X–Y" with actual code quoted. Include the --timing numbers that make this a bottleneck.--timing output, or infer it from code structure?Every optimization MUST pass a stability gate before inclusion in the plan. After implementing a change, run the full test suite 5 times consecutively:
.\tests\test.ps1 --live
.\tests\test.ps1 --live
.\tests\test.ps1 --live
.\tests\test.ps1 --live
.\tests\test.ps1 --live
All 5 runs must pass. A single failure means the optimization introduced flakiness and must be reverted or reworked. We are optimizing speed AND stability, not speed at the cost of reliability.
Section 1 — Phase bottlenecks (timing data from --timing):
| Phase | Bottleneck Test | Duration | Next Slowest | Gap | Splittable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 2 | test_live_core.ahk | 8.2s | test_live_features.ahk 3.1s | 5.1s | Yes — groups A and B are independent |
Section 2 — Process reuse opportunities:
| File | Lines | Current | Optimization | Estimated Savings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
test_foo.ahk | 42–60 | Launches own store | Reuse store from test_bar | ~1.5s |
Section 3 — Sleep-to-polling conversions:
| File | Line | Current | Replacement | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
test_foo.ahk | 88 | Sleep(500) | WaitForFlag(&ready) | Low — flag already exists |
Order by estimated time savings (largest first). Note cumulative impact on total suite duration.
Ignore any existing plans — create a fresh one.