Warp Eval
NVIDIAOfficialCreated by NVIDIA Corporation
- Skill
- Workflow
- Software development
- Apache-2.0
- Medium risk
- Has scripts
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
The warp-eval skill provides a structured, evidence-based methodology to determine if specific hot paths in an existing codebase are viable candidates for NVIDIA Warp. It emphasizes objective reporting over recommendations, requiring users to define clear performance metrics and semantic contracts before any prototyping occurs. The process includes static screening, rigorous baseline comparisons, and authorized benchmarking, ensuring that Warp is only considered after in-project alternatives have been exhausted. The skill enforces strict gates to abort evaluations that do not meet technical or policy requirements, ensuring that only credible candidates proceed to measurement.
What it does
- Screens code bottlenecks against specific technical gates to determine Warp suitability.
- Requires the establishment of a semantic contract and performance baseline before prototyping.
- Enforces a ladder of in-project optimizations to be exhausted before introducing Warp.
- Produces a standardized evaluation report containing measurements, evidence, and caveats.
- Ensures all performance claims are backed by synchronized, end-to-end measurements.
- Provides scripts for synchronized timing, memory profiling, and report validation.
When to use it
- When investigating performance bottlenecks involving irregular queries, simulations, or branch-heavy loops.
- When you need to objectively assess if Warp provides a measurable benefit over existing in-project baselines.
- When you require a reproducible, audit-ready report on potential GPU acceleration candidates.
- When you need to determine if a performance issue is material enough to warrant a new dependency.
Advantages
- Prevents premature optimization by requiring algorithmic improvements first.
- Provides a clear, objective framework to stop evaluations that are not technically viable.
- Ensures performance measurements include realistic overheads like JIT, transfers, and synchronization.
- Maintains production code integrity by working in isolated, independent patches.
- Standardizes the reporting of facts, hypotheses, and unknowns.
Usage examples
- “Evaluate if the particle simulation loop in my project is a good candidate for Warp.”
- The agent will identify the candidate seam, derive the contract, check initial gates, and provide a resource preview before asking for authorization to proceed with profiling.
- “I have a performance bottleneck in my geometry processing code; can you run a warp-eval?”
- The agent will initiate the screening process, request the target repository, and begin identifying candidate patterns to determine if a formal evaluation is warranted.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/nvidia/warp-eval/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip warp-eval.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by NVIDIA Corporation
Warp evaluation
Purpose
Collect reproducible evidence about how a narrow seam in an existing codebase would behave in NVIDIA Warp. Report facts; the user decides.
Name Warp as the option under evaluation in the first line, state that no adoption recommendation will follow, and do not treat the triggering performance request as authorization to experiment.
Measured evaluations produce warp-evaluation-report/: the report, one
independently applicable diff per solution, the drivers, and raw results. Never
modify production code. Exits before measured work create no directory.
Hard rules
These override any local reasoning.
Default objectives are latency, throughput, and peak or retained memory. Count maintainability, ergonomics, packaging, extensibility, autodiff or new functionality only when the user names it; otherwise report them as constraints or costs, not benefits.
Correctness is a gate. If the incumbent is buggy or its contract unclear, abort that comparison until an independent oracle or clarified contract exists. Report the defect without prescribing a response.
Never predict savings from source shape or another workload. Materialized memory comes from profiler or allocator evidence, not source a compiler may fuse.
"It can be written in Warp" is a hypothesis, never a proven opportunity.
Gates are exact, never adjacent or analogous. Fire a gate only when every condition in its definition is established. Gate D requires a maintained implementation confirmed to execute with CUDA on an NVIDIA GPU; a fast native CPU library is a baseline, not Gate D.
Label every claim as observed fact, measurement, hypothesis or unknown.
Time the user-visible stage, not the kernel. Include Warp's cold import/init/JIT in the real process regime, transfers, launches, Python launch loops, structure build/refit, allocation, conversion, validation, compaction and synchronization. Report each cost and the end-to-end difference.
No measured work without explicit authorization. After stage 1, stop and ask before profiling, environment changes, prototyping, benchmarking or GPU use.
Authorized measured work includes Warp. If profiling exposes no gate, continue through the strongest in-project baseline, minimum Warp prototype and end-to-end comparison. If Warp is out of scope, stop before profiling.
Never infer environment intent. NVIDIA deployment and ownership of an optional compiled dependency are product decisions. Abort only on a stated constraint; otherwise ask once and stop (
AWAITING INTENT).Warp measurements are CUDA-only and synchronized. Resolve an explicit NVIDIA CUDA device; discard CPU resolution and dispatch-only timing.
Never recommend or rank adoption options. Report facts, measurements, hypotheses and unknowns per seam and regime.
Stop at the report. No rollout or production edits.
Requirements
Static screening requires the target repository and its stated product constraints. Measured work additionally requires explicit authorization, an NVIDIA CUDA GPU, target-project dependencies and a representative workload.
Limitations
Warp CPU kernels are serial and outside this skill's evaluation scope. "Run it on the CPU instead" is not a performance fallback.
Mesh and geometry queries compute in float32/int32 even behind a float64 public API. Absolute error grows with coordinate magnitude.
Warp does not follow semver. Feature releases can break APIs, only the newest feature line is maintained, deprecations run roughly four monthly releases.
latestdocs track development, not the shipped release. Pin to the target project's own Warp version; if it has none, use the current stable and say which.Kernel-only builtins are not resolvable from Python —
hasattr(wp, "mesh_query_point")isFalseon a release that has it. Probe the stub file or that version's docs before concluding a builtin is absent.enable_backward=False(kernel, module or global) removes adjoint codegen. If nothing differentiates through the seam, set it before measuring compile cost.
Output Format
| State | Reached when | Report directory |
|---|---|---|
ABORT | Any gate establishes that the evaluated seam cannot satisfy the stated scope | No if nothing was measured; otherwise preserve the evidence already collected |
AWAITING INTENT | The environment gates turn on a fact only the user has | No — one question, both branches concrete |
AWAITING AUTHORIZATION | A candidate pattern survives stage 1 | No — early findings plus scope/resource preview |
INCOMPLETE | Authorized work cannot obtain representative evidence required for the scoped evaluation | Yes — preserve collected evidence and name the one missing artifact |
| Report delivered | Authorized work produced measurements, or stopped after the report directory existed | Yes — facts per seam and regime, with missing evidence explicit |
Use this exact shape for an early exit:
ABORT — Gate <letter>: <cited fact>; <why the scoped Warp evaluation cannot proceed>.
Do not name a preferred alternative.
Reporting rules:
references/evidence-and-reporting.md.
A delivered directory follows the template's fixed order: schema and provenance,
authorization and evaluation state, stage census, one B<n> evidence section
per seam/regime, caveats, then environment/reproduction. solutions/,
benchmarks/ and results/ contain every linked artifact.
Examples
Gate exit: ABORT — Gate A: deployment.md requires one implementation with AMD, Apple and NVIDIA parity; a Warp-specific path cannot satisfy this scope.
Surviving candidate: Name the seam and pattern, label inferred facts as assumptions, state that no gate has fired, preview the profile/baseline/Warp prototype/benchmark scope and its cost, then ask the separate intent and authorization questions from references/authorization-checkpoint.md.
Inputs
Required: the target repository and a performance, memory or scale problem with a candidate seam. Optional: explicit deployment/packaging constraints, existing profiles or logs, representative datasets and acceptance criteria. Prompt constraints take precedence over repository policy/configuration, then existing logs. User corrections override inference. Never substitute an assumption for a stated fact or measurement.
Available scripts
| Script | Purpose | Arguments |
|---|---|---|
scripts/driver-template.py | Copy once per bottleneck; define workloads and variants | Edit placeholders, then run the copied driver |
scripts/measure.py | Import from drivers for synchronized timing, memory and isolated cases | Python API; do not execute directly |
scripts/validate_report_schema.py | Validate the delivered report and evidence links | <report-directory> |
Use run_script("scripts/validate_report_schema.py", args=["warp-evaluation-report"])
when supported; otherwise invoke the script with Python and the report directory.
Troubleshooting
No representative workload: mark the scope
INCOMPLETEand name the missing artifact; do not invent data or fire Gate F.Warp resolves to CPU or no CUDA device: discard the run and stop before correctness or timing claims.
Report validation fails: fix the report or referenced artifact; never waive the schema error.
Instructions
Every stage before the last can end the evaluation. Stop as soon as a gate fires; do not gather evidence that cannot change the scoped facts.
1. Read the code, derive the contract, check the gates
Identify a candidate and its metric with references/target-patterns.md.
Derive devices/residency, dtypes/shapes, sizes, frequency, process lifetime, gradients and packaging from the repository. Infer before asking.
State the inferred contract in one line and invite correction. Unknown hardware, counts, sizes and tolerances are assumptions, never measurements. Every inference remains open to correction and cannot satisfy a gate that requires a stated fact or measurement.
Check Gates A–E before profiling. Check Gate F now only if representative evidence already exists; otherwise carry it into stage 2. Every gate uses only the exact boundaries in references/rejection-gates.md.
| Gate | Fires when |
|---|---|
| A | Production is stated CPU-only or to need non-NVIDIA portability, with no acceptable optional CUDA path |
| B | Data must cross the host/device boundary per small or infrequent call and the boundary cannot be widened |
| C | The region is dense tensor algebra already mapped to a tuned framework or vendor library |
| D | A mature CUDA implementation already meets the contract, and no non-performance objective was requested |
| E | A stated policy blocks Warp's dependency, compilation, cache or fallback obligations |
| F | Representative evidence proves the region too small a share of its requested metric for any backend to move it |
Gate F can fire in stage 1 only from representative evidence that already exists — a supplied profile, structural bound, or arithmetic on figures the user quoted. If that evidence does not exist, Gate F remains open until stage 2 profiling; inferred values never fire it.
Gates A and E need a stated constraint. A CPU implementation, another accelerator, no Warp dependency, or a small dependency list proves nothing.
When A/E are unresolved and a pattern survives, ask whether an optional NVIDIA path is acceptable: named extra, soft import, existing fallback, default install unchanged. Every affirmative answer must say explicitly that Warp will be prototyped and benchmarked; conditions constrain only that Warp scope. A negative or undecided answer means
ABORT.Do not ask when another gate fired, the repository answers, or no pattern matched. No pattern means no profiling.
If a candidate survives, combine any intent question with the authorization checkpoint — early findings, exact scope, stages, resource cost — then stop. Stage 2 requires both settled intent and explicit authorization.
2. Profile the real application
Requires explicit authorization and a settled intent question.
Profile with the project's own profiler and representative entry points.
Measure synchronized end-to-end stage time and peak memory before choosing a backend. Report which entry points were profiled and which a gate screened.
Prioritize further measurement by observed cost, not source appearance.
Name each measurement by the public method and variant actually invoked. A fallback is an execution regime of that public seam, not a different operation, and a cheaper sibling method cannot screen out the named method.
Confirm the timed branch ran on the intended device. Unchanged cost and near-zero device allocation between host and device inputs exposes a host fallback.
Measure the stage's free-stage ceiling and stubbed floor through the public boundary. Do not subtract per-op timings.
If the measured ceiling proves the candidate cannot move its own metric,
ABORTthe affected scope under Gate F, preserve the evidence already collected, and stop. The existing authorization already covered this materiality check; do not ask for authorization again.If representative coverage is unavailable — no representative dataset, runnable entry point or production distribution — record the single missing artifact, mark the affected scope
INCOMPLETE, and stop. This is missing evidence, not Gate F and notABORT. An invented workload cannot prove materiality.
Protocol: references/benchmark-protocol.md.
3. Form falsifiable hypotheses
Record per candidate: source, bottleneck evidence, objective, narrow seam, mechanism Warp could change, strongest incumbent, risks, acceptance threshold, cheapest falsifying experiment. Screen against references/target-patterns.md; if none survives, write the report and stop.
4. Write the contract before the prototype
Define values, dtypes, shapes, devices, errors, mutation, ordering, ties, capacity/overflow, topology/degeneracy, tolerances, required gradients, streams, ownership, aliasing, invalidation, concurrency, capture, teardown and fallback.
Fix tolerances before seeing Warp output. Never weaken a contract after a mismatch.
ABORTbefore prototyping if the proposed seam cannot satisfy a required contract.Pre-register, before timing: workload provenance, the state variable and production range controlling cost, tuning knobs, incumbent run-to-run spread, and the oracle applied to every implementation.
Hazards and adversarial checks: references/semantic-contract.md.
5. Improve the baseline first
Algorithm before backend: (1) a better or output-sensitive algorithm; (2) chunking, tiling, sparse output, layout, rematerialization; (3) the incumbent framework's compiler and native primitives; (4) what the project already depends on — its own accelerator backend, a parallel idiom it ships but leaves off, or a capability an existing dependency exposes and nobody wired up; (5) only then narrow Warp.
Compare only in-scope options: the improved incumbent, capabilities reachable through current dependencies, and Warp. Do not add unrelated libraries.
Search declared dependencies for dormant backends, flags and bindings before calling a route absent.
Keep the improved incumbent as the oracle. A result against an untuned, incorrect or asymptotically inferior baseline does not establish a backend comparison.
Close every in-project route before prototyping Warp:
| State | What it takes to claim it |
|---|---|
| measured | timed through the same boundary as the baseline |
| absent | a cited declaration, symbol table or missing flag proves it is unavailable |
| waived | you asked the user and they chose to skip it; record their words |
A capability present but unbound is reachable, not absent. If exposing it costs no more than the planned Warp seam, measure it first. Ladder details: references/baselines.md. Waived routes do not block stage 6; every route not explicitly waived must be measured or evidenced absent before the Warp prototype begins.
6. Prototype the minimum unit
Work in a separate copy, production unchanged, integration seam off by default. Prototype only enough to test the hypothesis.
Select an explicit CUDA device for every Warp prototype and verify that Warp resolves it as CUDA before correctness or performance work. Never exercise or report Warp's CPU backend.
Size the unit by shared data and structure lifetime, not function boundaries: build/refit/query costs that amortize together are one unit.
Name variants before timing. Preserve each solution as an independent patch against the pinned baseline, and prove it applies cleanly and reproduces the measured result.
Surface unsupported cases and overflow before timing.
Run the adversarial contract checks, audit correctness at production scale, and deliberately break a branch to prove the tests fail. Any failed required check returns
ABORTfor the affected scope.Before treating a disappointing compute-bound or reuse-heavy result as representative, consider the stronger formulations in references/target-patterns.md. One naive kernel does not bound Warp's potential.
7. Benchmark the whole boundary
Copy scripts/driver-template.py once per bottleneck and measure through scripts/measure.py. Do not hand-roll timing or memory.
Warp launches are asynchronous. The measurement helper must synchronize the selected device immediately before starting and after enqueueing every timed region, before stopping its wall timer.
Include every rule-7 cost, the public call, the immediate downstream stage, realistic sizes, and cold/warm process regimes.
Transcribe every report cell from emitted JSON; absent records read
not measured.Report
null_test, and one-time costs both separately and amortized. Serialize GPU measurements under an exclusive device lock. Below 1.5× is no measured difference.ABORTfor a seam and regime whose predeclared end-to-end performance or memory requirement fails, after preserving the measurements.
Full protocol: references/benchmark-protocol.md.
8. Summarize the evidence
Per seam and execution regime, report semantic results, strongest-baseline measurements, workload provenance, time, memory, lifecycle, portability and ownership facts.
Use
pass,fail,not measured,not available,no representative data,unknownorn/aonly where a stated criterion makes that status objective. Missing evidence remains missing.Mark the report
completeonly when every evaluated seam and regime includes an end-to-end Warp measurement. Useaborted — <gate and scope>when a gate fired, orincomplete — <missing evidence and scope>when representative evidence was unavailable. Preserve everything collected. Never deliver an incumbent-only report as a completedwarp-eval.Give every stage worth ≥10 % of the measured total a census row with a status and a one-line reason, including the screened-out stages.
Check each gate against the metric that candidate's pattern exhausts, not the study's headline objective.
9. Hand back
Use assets/warp-evaluation-report-template.md unchanged in schema. Record authorization and scope.
One table per bottleneck: baseline, current-dependency solutions, then Warp; absolute time and peak memory, ratios, contract status, evidence gaps.
Include prose only where it explains the measurements or their bounds. Working artifacts belong in
results/.
uv run python scripts/validate_report_schema.py <report-directory>Run the validator once the first measurement establishes a census/table, and again before delivery. Fix every error.
Verify builds and imports from artifacts, not exit status. Ship the exact drivers run. Then stop.
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer897 B
- BENCHMARK.md4.3 KiB
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer11.2 KiB
- SKILL.md19.2 KiB
- assets/warp-evaluation-report-template.md5.8 KiB
- config/skillspector-baseline.yaml475 B
- evals/evals.json22.3 KiB
- evals/files/gate-a-required-portability/deployment.md638 B
- evals/files/gate-a-required-portability/neighbors.pyScript872 B
- evals/files/gate-b-unwidenable-host-boundary/architecture.md794 B
- evals/files/gate-b-unwidenable-host-boundary/scoring.pyScript880 B
- evals/files/gate-c-dense-vendor-lowered/feature_stage.pyScript615 B
- evals/files/gate-d-cpu-incumbent-not-cuda/baseline.md472 B
- evals/files/gate-d-cpu-incumbent-not-cuda/operation_api.pyScript440 B
- evals/files/gate-d-mature-incumbent/baseline.md960 B
- evals/files/gate-d-mature-incumbent/contact_api.pyScript948 B
- evals/files/gate-e-runtime-obligations-forbidden/candidates.pyScript735 B
- evals/files/gate-e-runtime-obligations-forbidden/packaging-policy.md845 B
- evals/files/gate-f-immaterial-stage/profile.json603 B
- evals/files/gate-f-immaterial-stage/spatial_filter.pyScript646 B
- evals/files/pattern-fused-edge-intermediate/context.md742 B
- evals/files/pattern-fused-edge-intermediate/message_passing.pyScript521 B
- evals/files/pattern-sequential-recurrence/adaptive_filter.pyScript462 B
- evals/files/pattern-sequential-recurrence/context.md596 B
- evals/files/proceed-persistent-mesh-query/context.md767 B
- evals/files/proceed-persistent-mesh-query/queries.pyScript804 B
- references/authorization-checkpoint.md3.8 KiB
- references/baselines.md12.2 KiB
- references/benchmark-protocol.md16.3 KiB
- references/evidence-and-reporting.md7.2 KiB
- references/rejection-gates.md8.2 KiB
- references/semantic-contract.md13.3 KiB
- references/target-patterns.md16.3 KiB
- scripts/driver-template.pyScript3.4 KiB
- scripts/measure.pyScript20.8 KiB
- scripts/validate_report_schema.pyScript13.5 KiB
- skill-card.md4.4 KiB
- skill.oms.sig12.5 KiB
references/rejection-gates.md
Rejection gates
A gate asks: does a stated fact make this Warp evaluation inapplicable to the scoped seam or regime? Each is a property of the environment, workload shape or incumbent — never a statement about how much evidence is available. Missing measurements are not a gate; report them as missing downstream.
Run Gates A–E before profiling. Run Gate F before profiling only when representative evidence already exists; otherwise settle it from the authorized stage-2 profile.
Any one gate resolves to
ABORT, with no Warp prototype at all.There are no "adjacent", partial or analogous gates. If every stated condition does not hold, that gate does not fire.
Gates B, C and D are visible in code and incumbent artifacts. Gate F requires representative measured or structural evidence.
Gates A and E are product decisions — which hardware the product may require, which obligations its packaging can take. Fire them only on something stated; where nothing states it, ask and stop (
AWAITING INTENT). Code that runs on the CPU today, or on another accelerator, or without a Warp dependency, records neither decision.
Gate A — deployment excludes NVIDIA
Production is CPU-only, or requires accelerated non-NVIDIA portability, with no acceptable optional CUDA path. Warp's CPU kernels are serial, so "run it on CPU instead" is not a performance fallback.
Fires on:
a deployment, support or packaging document naming target hardware with no NVIDIA part; a fleet or appliance SKU list without one; a stated hardware freeze;
cross-vendor parity promised as a product property — CI covering several vendors from one source, a "runs anywhere" guarantee;
a non-NVIDIA accelerator this path must keep (TPU pods, Metal, ROCm-only) with no optional CUDA path acceptable alongside;
the user saying so.
Does not fire on absence: no GPU code, no CUDA in the dependency list, no Warp, CPU-only CI, a NumPy implementation, or a framework that happens to be running on the CPU here. None of that says the product may not use an NVIDIA GPU.
Does not fire on a second accelerator that merely exists. A JAX-on-TPU codebase, or a project with a Metal path, still faces the question of whether an NVIDIA path is acceptable here, alongside what exists. Required parity across targets fires the gate; a second target is a portability and ownership fact to record.
Gate B — the boundary dominates
Data must cross host/device per small or infrequent call and the boundary cannot
be widened. → ABORT unless the caller can be restructured to keep data
resident.
Gate C — it is ordinary dense tensor algebra
Dense linear algebra, convolution, FFT, reductions, standard neural-network
layers, or anything already lowered efficiently by the framework or a vendor
library. The tuned framework or vendor path is the relevant baseline. → ABORT.
Gate D — a mature CUDA implementation already satisfies the contract
All three required: a maintained implementation is confirmed to execute through
CUDA on an NVIDIA GPU; it already meets the semantics; it approaches the
relevant GPU's hardware limits. → ABORT unless the user explicitly requested
an allowed non-performance objective and defined an acceptable
performance-regression budget.
Does not fire when the incumbent's measured work executes on the CPU, however fast. Native extensions, vectorized code, multithreaded code and CPU JITs are strongest-baseline candidates, not CUDA paths. Do not infer CUDA execution from implementation language, package type or performance. If the incumbent does not execute on an NVIDIA GPU, Gate D is unavailable.
Gate E — the project cannot own the obligations
Warp adds an optional dependency, runtime compilation, a kernel cache, a version-qualification matrix, platform-specific tests and a fallback path.
Fires on a stated policy: no runtime code generation; no compiler or toolchain in the image; a read-only or air-gapped deployment with no writable cache; vendored prebuilt binaries only; a pure-Python wheel guarantee; a dependency policy that excludes it.
Does not fire on a project that merely happens to be pure Python today, ships a small dependency list, or has no compiled extension yet — that is a cost to raise, not a decision the repository has made. Nor does it fire on a contribution policy that requires prior discussion for dependency additions, or states they are unlikely to be merged: that governs how a change is proposed and by whom, not whether the project can own the obligations.
Ask Gate E together with Gate A's question — for the user they are one decision. State the concrete optional-path shape when asking: a named optional dependency group, a soft import, and a fallback to the existing implementation leave the default install unchanged, so only opt-in users carry the runtime obligations. Do not assume the project accepts it.
Gate F — the region provably cannot matter
The candidate stage is too small a share of the requested metric for any backend to move it. Fires only from a profile the user supplied, an obvious structural bound, or arithmetic on figures they quoted. If you cannot tell without measuring, leave the gate open and settle it in stage 2. A stage-2 Gate F result aborts the already-authorized scope without another authorization question.
Unavailable representative coverage is not Gate F. Record the single missing
artifact and stop with missing evidence; do not convert absence into ABORT.
The profile must represent the requested objective. A measured share fires the gate only when the profile's workload, execution regime and metric match the user's target. A share from a maintenance, synthetic, demonstration or otherwise unrelated workload proves nothing, and missing target frequency or distribution is missing evidence rather than Gate F.
Apply it against the metric that candidate's pattern exhausts, not the study's headline objective. Classify first and use the resource named by the matched target pattern. A latency study still contains candidates whose whole value is memory or capacity.
Show the ceiling arithmetic: what the requested metric becomes with the stage free, and the maximum ratio that implies. Gate F requires a ceiling you can state, not an impression.
State which metric the gate was applied against, and the device memory budget the calculation assumes.
Asking about intent
Gates A and E unclear, at least one candidate pattern standing, no other gate
fired: that is AWAITING INTENT. Ask one question, then stop — before
profiling, before the report directory, before any prototype.
A question worth asking:
states what you read, not what you want — "nothing in the repo says whether CPU-only is a requirement or just where this landed", not "do you have a GPU?", which invites a yes from someone with a laptop GPU and no intention of shipping against it;
makes both branches concrete and finished, naming whether Warp will be tested or the evaluation aborts;
is asked once, batched with the authorization checkpoint;
does not argue.
Ask: "May this evaluation prototype and benchmark a Warp implementation?" Use choices whose labels and descriptions state the action explicitly:
| Choice | What follows |
|---|---|
| Yes — test Warp as an optional backend | Prototype and benchmark Warp behind the named extra, soft import and existing fallback; record those conditions in scope |
| Yes — test Warp without additional packaging conditions | Prototype and benchmark Warp across the widest otherwise-authorized scope |
| No or undecided | ABORT before profiling; cite the user-supplied constraint or unresolved intent |
| No answer | Stop. No report directory. This is not ABORT: Warp was plausible, but the evaluation never ran |
Do not offer "CPU-side findings only" or incumbent-only profiling as a branch of
warp-eval; that is a separate ordinary optimization task.
Do not ask when the repository answers it; when another gate already fired (B, C, D and F end the study on their own); when no pattern matched; or when you would proceed regardless — if "CPU-only, please" would leave you still assessing Warp, the question was decoration.
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Needs Python
The author says: Screening, static evaluation and reporting need no GPU. Measuring Warp requires an NVIDIA CUDA GPU, the target project's dependencies and a representative workload; without them, abort before profiling.
Security
What our scanner noticed· Medium risk
- Large base64-encoded blobs
- Scripts that your agent may run
This skill includes scripts that your agent may run. Read them before you use it.
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Created by
- NVIDIA Corporation
- Publisher
- NVIDIA (Official)
- Source
- NVIDIA/skills · skills/warp-eval · commit fce3cca
- Licence
- Apache License 2.0 (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE-APACHE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by NVIDIA Corporation or NVIDIA.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download warp-eval.zip