This is a very difficult thing to make a good metric for: take alphastar (deepmind's starcraft 2 AI), for example. They made a big deal about keeping its averag

This is a very difficult thing to make a good metric for: take alphastar (deepmind's starcraft 2 AI), for example. They made a big deal about keeping its average APM (actions per minute, more or less how many button presses and mouse clicks a player makes) within human limits, and yet the general sentiment is that it's better because of extreme micro performance that's not replicable by humans. The issue is twofold: firstly average APM is not a particularly good constraint because humans cannot generally burst APM as high as an AI can (and it's generally useful for them to 'waste' APM in slower periods to keep a pace going). Secondly, not all actions are equal: the vast majority of actions a human player takes are pretty low-impact, and the high-impact actions are harder to do at the same rate as the low ones, wheras the AI can far more efficiently spend an APM budget even if a peak rate is enforced. Which basically leads to an AI that beats pro players because it can perfectly micro blink stalkers, making that army substantially more powerful, as opposed to being particularly good at strategy. (Which all-in-all means I would consider this kind of AI more comparable to a TAS (tool-assisted-speedrun) than a human run. It would be very interesting if such an approach can beat human-created TAS)