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 gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-perfgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflowWrote 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/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-perf)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-perf"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow/review-perf.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 5.1 | $0.00067 | $0.00975 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00487 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00195 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00097 |
Grade A, and why
review-perf 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 3d 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 — 89 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Performance (internal)
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any
agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits,
never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
- ✓ No N+1 query/IO pattern on changed data-access paths (loop bodies issuing queries/requests — cite)
- ✓ Algorithmic complexity of new code paths stated where input can grow (an unbounded O(n²) on user data is a major finding)
- ✓ No blocking IO/sync work added on hot/request paths where the platform is async
- ✓ Resources opened by the change are closed/released on ALL paths including errors (files, connections, subscriptions, timers)
- ✓ No unbounded growth introduced (caches without eviction, arrays that only append, listeners never removed)
- ✓ Web only: bundle/asset impact of the change stated (new dep size, image weight, lazy-loading where the project uses it) — n/a otherwise
- ✓ Repeated computation hoisted where a loop recomputes an invariant (cite)
- ✓ Pagination/limits on any new listing that reads user-scaled data
- ✓ No premature optimization either: complexity added for speed without a cited measurement is a finding (the repo forbids overengineering)
- ✓ Measured evidence when declared — the project's agent guide declares a
Performance commandsblock with abenchcommand AND the diff touches paths its benchmarks cover: RUN the benchmark on the base branch and on the change, and cite both numbers in Evidence as<cmd> → base <x> / change <y> (<±z%>). A regression beyond the noise band (the project's declared band, else ±5%) is a major finding; a delta inside the band is no finding. The declared command failing (non-zero exit) is itself a finding (the gate can't measure) — never silently skipped. - ✓ No declared perf commands → state exactly
n/a — no declared perf commandsfor the item above (never skip it silently), and if the diff adds algorithmic code on input that can grow, add a minor finding recommending the project adopt the tooling viainit-workspace's Performance tooling round.
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.
- 3d ago Changed · +9 lines a15b99a6435e
- 7d ago First seen · 80 lines · 67 tokens per session scan A 140835f32aa8
review-perf is a skill published in the GitHub repository gtrabanco/agentic-workflow (21 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 67 tokens to every session and 975 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 skills, from other repositories
argumentation
Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Covers formulating falsifiable hypotheses, building logical arguments (deductive, inductive, analogical, evidential), providing concrete examples, and steelmanning counterarguments. Use when writing or reviewing PR descriptions that…
cross-review-project
Conduct a structured cross-project code review between two Claude Code instances via the cross-review-mcp broker. Each agent reads its own codebase, reviews the peer's code, and engages in evidence-backed dialogue — with QSG scaling laws enforcing review quality through minimum bandwidth constraints and phase-gated…
create-pull-request
Create and manage pull requests using GitHub CLI. Covers branch preparation, writing PR titles and descriptions, creating PRs, handling review feedback, and merge/cleanup workflows. Use when proposing changes from a feature or fix branch for review, merging completed work into the main branch, requesting code review…
coding-guidance-python
Python implementation and review skill. Use when writing, modifying, refactoring, or reviewing Python code, especially production Python that needs clear contracts, type safety, testability, and maintainable module boundaries. Portable across Python repos and tooling stacks.
007
Security audit, hardening, threat modeling (STRIDE/PASTA), Red/Blue Team, OWASP checks, code review, incident response, and infrastructure security for any project.
address-github-comments
Use when you need to address review or issue comments on an open GitHub Pull Request using the gh CLI.