L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Développement · SKILL.md

performance-review

performance-review

Review code changes only for performance and efficiency risks (N+1 queries, repeated work, bad asymptotics, missing batching/caching, blocking I/O, memory growth). Use when the user explicitly asks for a performance review of a diff/PR.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: performance-review description: Review code changes only for performance and efficiency risks (N+1 queries, repeated work, bad asymptotics, missing batching/caching, blocking I/O, memory growth). Use when the user explicitly asks for a performance review of a diff/PR.

Performance Review

In rag-reviewer:review-pr use the PR-session tools above. Standalone (no PR session): use the session-less tools per the reviewer-grounding block when reviewer is connected and the index is fresh; otherwise fall back to grep/Read.

Goal

Look only for performance and efficiency risks in the selected changes. Ignore style, architecture, tests, and general correctness unless they materially affect performance.

Prioritize findings such as:

  • N+1 queries and repeated remote calls;
  • unnecessary loops or repeated work;
  • bad asymptotic behavior on hot paths;
  • redundant rendering, serialization, parsing, allocations, or avoidable copies;
  • missing batching, caching, pagination, or streaming where the diff makes that risk likely;
  • blocking I/O or CPU-heavy work on latency-sensitive paths;
  • memory growth or large payload handling.

Method

  1. Read the diff first.
  2. Open only the nearby code needed to understand whether the changed path is performance-sensitive. In rag-reviewer:review-pr use the reviewer MCP tools: read_file, search_code, find_callers.
  3. Prefer concrete findings over vague perf speculation.
  4. If a concern depends on an assumption, state that assumption explicitly.
  5. If a path is probably not performance-sensitive, do not invent issues.

Severity

  • critical / high: likely severe latency, throughput, or resource regression on an important path.
  • medium: meaningful inefficiency or scaling risk that should probably be fixed.
  • low: worthwhile optimization or preventive note, not a blocker.

Output

Return only actionable findings.

Return ONLY the findings JSON used by the review pipeline, with "category": "performance":

  • Calibrate confidence against a measurable, reproducible effect: a hot path you can point to (loop bound, query inside a loop) → 0.8+; a plausible but data-dependent cost → 0.5–0.7; no measurable/reproducible effect → ≤ 0.4 (drop). Set "category" to "performance"; "side" is always "RIGHT".
Skills enregistrées