本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

performance-slo-planner

Performance, load, and reliability (SLO/SRE) planning for production readiness. Use when defining service level objectives, load characterization, capacity, latency budgets, stress/soak/spike test plans, false-positive baselines, and reliability targets. USE FOR: SLO/SLA definition, load testing plan, performance budget, capacity planning, reliability/SRE backlog, latency targets, error-budget policy. DO NOT USE FOR: executing load tests (use Azure Load Testing tooling), security threat modeling, RAI assessment, privacy/compliance planning, or authoring/restating PRD requirements (cite the PRD's existing NFR/FR ids instead).

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Performance & SLO/SRE Planner

Turn vague "it should be fast and reliable" expectations into measurable SLIs, SLOs, a load model, a test matrix, and a reliability backlog for production readiness. Pairs with Azure Load Testing tooling for execution. This skill plans; it does not run the tests.

When to Use

  • Defining service level objectives and error budgets before launch.
  • Characterizing load behavior (steady, peak, spike, soak) for a system with "no characterized load."
  • Setting latency/throughput budgets and a false-positive/accuracy baseline.
  • Producing a reliability/SRE backlog for a production-readiness review.

When Not to Use

  • Running the load tests: hand the test matrix to the Azure Load Testing tools.
  • Security, RAI, or privacy concerns: use the respective specialist skill.
  • Authoring or restating requirements: cite the PRD's existing NFR ids rather than re-deriving targets.
  • Redefining user journeys: reference the PRD's existing FR ids rather than inventing flows.

Inputs

Gather what exists; flag what is missing as an assumption to validate.

  1. Business goals (BRD): the business objectives and risk tolerance behind the targets (for example revenue-critical flows, contractual SLAs) that justify each SLO and error budget.
  2. Critical user journeys: the flows that must stay fast (for example: incident ingest → display, dispatch action, alert acknowledge).
  3. Stated NFRs (PRD): latency/availability targets from the PRD's NFRs, Success Metrics, and Operational Readiness sections (for example stratified SLAs like "Critical ≤ 60s, Standard ≤ 3min").
  4. Traffic assumptions: expected and peak concurrency, request rates, and growth.
  5. Accuracy expectations: false-positive tolerance where relevant (for example alerting).

Procedure

  1. Identify SLIs. For each critical journey pick measurable indicators: latency (p50/p95/p99), availability, error rate, and accuracy/false-positive rate where relevant.
  2. Set SLOs and error budgets. For each SLI define a target, a measurement window, and the resulting error budget. Anchor each SLO to a specific PRD NFR id when present; otherwise propose a target and mark it [ASSUMPTION] for tuning.
  3. Define the load model. Specify steady-state, peak, spike, and soak profiles with concurrency/rate and duration for each.
  4. Build the test matrix. Map each load profile to the journeys it exercises, the pass/fail SLO thresholds, and the environment.
  5. Plan capacity and degradation. Note scaling assumptions, saturation points, and required graceful-degradation behavior (no silent fidelity drops).
  6. List observability hooks. Name the metrics/traces needed to measure each SLI in production; an SLO you cannot measure is not real.
  7. Write the backlog to .copilot-tracking/performance-plans/<date>-performance-slo-plan.md using the Output Format.

Output Format

# Performance & SLO Plan: <app>

## SLOs
| SLI         | Journey         | Target           | Window         | Error budget | Source                 |
|-------------|-----------------|------------------|----------------|--------------|------------------------|
| p95 latency | dispatch action | ≤ 60s end-to-end | 28-day rolling | 1%           | NFR-123 / [ASSUMPTION] |

## Load model
| Profile             | Concurrency / rate | Duration | Purpose  |
|---------------------|--------------------|----------|----------|
| Steady              | ...                | ...      | baseline |
| Peak / Spike / Soak | ...                | ...      | ...      |

## Test matrix
| Test | Profile | Journeys | Pass threshold | Env |
|------|---------|----------|----------------|-----|

## Observability hooks
- <metric/trace needed to measure each SLI>

## Backlog
1. <item>: priority, depends-on, SLO it protects

> [!CAUTION]
> This plan is an assistive artifact and does not replace professional performance, reliability, or SRE review. Validate SLO targets, error budgets, and rollback triggers with the owning team before acting on them.

Principles

  • Measurable or it's not an SLO. Every target needs a defined SLI and a way to measure it in production.
  • Anchor to the PRD, mark the rest. Use stated NFRs verbatim; flag proposed numbers [ASSUMPTION] for agency/environment tuning.
  • Plan, don't run. Output a test matrix the Azure Load Testing tools can execute; do not execute here.
  • Degradation is a requirement. Define what graceful degradation looks like, not just the happy path.
  • Review-required. This plan is assistive: carry the professional-review disclaimer and validate targets and budgets with the owning team before acting.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Consolidated accessibility skill entrypoint for WCAG 2.2, ARIA Authoring Practices, cognitive accessibility, Section 508, EN 301 549, design intent verification, and the Accessibility Planner workflow.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

microsoft/hve-core1,5182026年10月11日 更新

Build, refresh, report, or probe an accessibility coverage matrix across criteria, surfaces, and evidence methods. Use when assessing coverage with the accessibility runtime harness and generated evidence bundle.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

microsoft/hve-core1,5182026年10月11日 更新

Authoring skill for Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) supporting capture, from-planner-handoff, and adopt-template entry modes with selectable Y-Statement or MADR v4.0.0 output templates, supersession lineage, and ASR trigger evaluation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

microsoft/hve-core1,5182026年10月11日 更新

Authoring conventions for exploratory data analysis notebooks and analytical dashboards, covering section sequence, visualization selection, scale thresholds, caching and state, and dashboard validation budgets. Use when composing or reviewing an EDA notebook, an analytical dashboard, or a dashboard test pass.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

microsoft/hve-core1,5182026年10月11日 更新

Architecture diagram authoring for cloud infrastructure and declared data catalogs. Use when rendering Azure IaC or DS_CATALOG_V1 relationships as caller-selected ASCII or Mermaid diagrams.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

microsoft/hve-core1,5182026年10月11日 更新

Create a durable Architecture Review Record from a confirmed System Architecture Reviewer scope, evidence, pillar analysis, trade-offs, and dispositions

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

microsoft/hve-core1,5182026年10月11日 更新

microsoft のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する