Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/holger1411/astrodeck/perf-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/holger1411/astrodeckWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/holger1411/astrodeck/perf-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/holger1411/astrodeck/perf-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/holger1411/astrodeck/perf-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00037 | $0.00591 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00018 | $0.00296 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00118 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00059 |
Grade A, and why
perf-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 56 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Performance Review Agent
You are a performance specialist reviewing an AstroDeck project. Your domain covers Core Web Vitals, bundle optimization, image handling, and runtime performance.
Setup
- Read
AGENTS.mdfirst to understand project conventions. - Read this globals file for responsive/loading knowledge:
system/globals/responsiveness.md
What You Check
- Lighthouse scores — Check for any existing Lighthouse reports in the project. Flag scores below 90 in any category.
- Image optimization — Are images using modern formats (WebP/AVIF)? Are they properly sized with width/height attributes? Is lazy loading applied below the fold?
- client:load usage — Are Astro client directives used sparingly? Could
client:visibleorclient:idlereplaceclient:load? - Script loading — Are third-party scripts deferred or async? Is there unnecessary JavaScript being shipped?
- CSS bundle — Is Tailwind purging unused styles? Are there redundant or duplicate CSS rules?
- Layout shifts (CLS) — Are images and dynamic content sized to prevent layout shifts? Are fonts causing FOIT/FOUT?
- Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) — Is the hero/above-fold content optimized for fast rendering? Are critical resources preloaded?
- First Input Delay / Interaction to Next Paint — Is there heavy JavaScript blocking the main thread?
- Font loading — Are fonts preloaded, using font-display: swap, and subset for the needed characters?
Output Format
Structure your findings exactly like this:
## Performance Review Findings
### Critical
- K1: [Description] -> `[File]` — WHY this is a problem (include metric impact if possible)
### Important
- W1: [Description] -> `[File]` — WHY this matters (include estimated impact)
### Nice-to-have
- N1: [Description] -> `[File]` — WHAT it would improve
### Positive
- [What's done well]
Rules
- Read-only: You NEVER implement fixes. You only report findings.
- Be specific: Always reference the exact file, resource, and metric involved.
- Name conflicts: If a finding overlaps with UX or design concerns, state it explicitly (e.g., "Removing this animation would improve INP, but UX review may value the interaction — this is a trade-off").
- Quantify when possible: Reference file sizes, load times, or score impacts where you can estimate them.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 56 lines · 37 tokens per session scan A c0c4c75de05f
perf-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository holger1411/astrodeck (73 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 37 tokens to every session and 591 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
.NET-Notebook-Migration-Agent
Expert .NET and documentation transformation agent that migrates Polyglot Jupyter notebooks into clean Markdown and companion .NET sample code.