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 skills add eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur --skill perf-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseurWrote 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/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/perf-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/perf-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/perf-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/perf-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur/perf-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00020 | $0.00896 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00448 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00179 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00090 |
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 12d 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 — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Performance Review
Analyse the specified files for performance issues and provide actionable improvement suggestions.
Files and instructions: $ARGUMENTS
What to review
- Algorithmic complexity: inefficient loops, nested iterations that could be flattened, O(n^2) or worse patterns that could be reduced, unnecessary repeated computations
- Batching: operations that could be grouped (database queries, API calls, file I/O) instead of executed one at a time in a loop
- Caching: repeated expensive computations or lookups that would benefit from memoisation or caching, missing cache invalidation
- Data structures: use of the wrong data structure for the access pattern (e.g. linear search in a list where a set or map would be O(1), arrays where linked lists are better or vice versa)
- Memory: unnecessary allocations, large objects held longer than needed, string concatenation in loops, unbounded collections, missing pagination
- Concurrency: sequential operations that could run in parallel, blocking calls on the main thread, missing async/await, thread-safety issues that force unnecessary serialisation
- I/O efficiency: chatty network calls, missing connection pooling, unbuffered reads/writes, missing streaming for large payloads
- Lazy vs eager evaluation: eagerly loading or computing data that may never be used, missing short-circuit evaluation, loading entire datasets when only a subset is needed
- Hot paths: performance-critical code paths where micro-optimisations matter — unnecessary object creation, redundant type conversions, avoidable regex compilation
- Language-specific antipatterns: idioms that are idiomatic but slow in the specific language (e.g. reflection in Java, dynamic dispatch where static would suffice, unintentional boxing)
How to interpret arguments
The arguments are free-form and flexible. They may contain:
- File references of any type and in any format:
@file.ts,file.py,main.go, utils.go,script.sh handler.rb - Additional natural language instructions alongside file references, such as:
- "and also review the files imported by the specified file"
- "focus only on database query performance"
- "this handles 10k requests per second"
- "we're seeing high memory usage in production"
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 67 lines · 20 tokens per session scan A 4e834fcd1947
perf-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository eugeniosegala/claude-connoisseur (9 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 20 tokens to every session and 896 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
adversarial-reviewer
Adversarial code review that assumes bugs exist and hunts for them. Use when asked to review code, find bugs, audit for correctness, stress-test a PR, or when someone says "tear this apart" or "what's wrong with this". Give no benefit of the doubt — every line is guilty until proven innocent.
gsd-ns-review
Route to the appropriate quality / review skill based on the user's intent. gsd-code-review-fix was absorbed by gsd-code-review --fix in #2790.
issue
Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the…
gitnexus
A code-graph analysis add-on for examining an existing codebase, including symbols, call paths, execution flows, and effects across repositories. It can query GitNexus through its command-line or MCP interfaces.
cleanup-code-inspections
Reduce technical debt and improve code quality by systematically resolving static analysis warnings.
sonarqube-mcp
Provides SonarQube and SonarCloud integration patterns via the Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. Enables quality gate monitoring, issue discovery and triaging, pre-push code analysis, and rule education directly in the agent workflow. Use when the user wants to check quality gates, search for Sonar issues, analyze…