Code review performance
Skill planifest/planifest-framework/planifest-framework/external-skills/code-review-performance
A specification framework for agentic development. Agents build from complete specs - not guesses.
npx -y skills add planifest/planifest-framework --skill code-review-performanceAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Run performance-focused code review when changes may affect latency, throughput, or CPU/memory/I/O efficiency on critical paths. Use for merge decisions requiring explicit performance-risk findings; do not use for broad non-performance review scope.
SKILL.md
2.3 KB, 410 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Code Review Performance
Overview
Use this skill to detect performance regressions before merge, especially on hot paths and high-traffic execution flows.
Scope Boundaries
- Use this skill when the task matches the trigger condition described in
description. - Do not use this skill when the primary task falls outside this skill's domain.
Inputs To Gather
- Hot-path endpoints/jobs and current performance budgets.
- Workload assumptions (QPS, payload size, concurrency, data cardinality).
- Existing benchmark/profiling evidence.
- Resource constraints (CPU, memory, I/O, network).
Deliverables
- Performance findings prioritized by user impact.
- Budget-fit judgment (within budget / at risk / out of budget).
- Required follow-up checks (benchmark, profiling, load test).
Finding Focus Areas
- Algorithmic growth (
O(n^2)regressions, repeated scans). - Allocation pressure and unnecessary object churn.
- I/O amplification (N+1 calls, repeated DB/API access).
- Contention/serialization bottlenecks under concurrency.
- Cache invalidation or cache-bypass risks.
Quick Example
- Change adds per-item DB call inside loop over 10k records.
- Finding: high-severity throughput risk (N+1 query pattern).
- Fix direction: batch query + in-memory map, verify via benchmark.
Quality Standard
- Each finding ties to an explicit performance budget or hotspot.
- Recommendations include measurement plan, not assumptions only.
- Risk classification includes expected scale sensitivity.
- Missing evidence (benchmark/profile) is flagged explicitly.
Workflow
- Identify changed hot paths and performance-sensitive flows.
- Analyze algorithmic and resource behavior from diff.
- Compare expected behavior with existing budgets.
- Require measurement where uncertainty is material.
- Publish findings with mitigation and verification steps.
Failure Conditions
- Stop when high-risk regressions have no mitigation/verification plan.
- Escalate when performance impact cannot be bounded from available evidence.