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 mgiovani/cc-arsenal --skill review-perfgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mgiovani/cc-arsenalWrote 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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-perf)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-perf"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-perf/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/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-perf"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mgiovani/cc-arsenal/review-perf.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 | $0.00128 | $0.01981 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00051 | $0.00792 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00026 | $0.00396 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00198 |
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 1mo 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 — 137 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Performance Review
Comprehensive performance analysis targeting database query inefficiencies, algorithmic complexity issues, frontend bottlenecks, and resource leaks. This skill only analyzes: it identifies problems and suggests optimizations without making code changes.
Constraints
| Constraint | Detail |
|---|---|
| Analysis only | Never modifies, fixes, or commits code, even if asked to "also fix these" mid-run; report the findings and stop |
| Static analysis | No runtime profiling, no benchmarking, no load testing |
| Pattern-based | Big O and impact estimates are approximate; may miss context-specific issues a profiler would catch |
| Not exhaustive | Does not guarantee 100% detection; profiling is recommended before acting on critical findings |
| Read before claiming | Never report a finding in a file that has not actually been read; every finding cites the specific file path and line number it came from |
| No invented numbers | Counts, query-multiplication estimates, and Big O claims must trace back to code actually read, not generic examples copied from the report template |
| Diff-scope confinement | For a PR or commit review, never grep or read a file the diff didn't touch, and never let a pre-existing issue in a touched file masquerade as a PR finding; see Phase 0/2 |
Scan Workflow
Phase 0: Determine Scan Scope
Parse arguments:
<pr_number>: scan only files changed in that PR (e.g.123,#123)<commit_sha>: scan only files changed in that commit--allor no args: scan entire codebase--scope [database|algorithm|frontend|resources|backend]: focus on specific categories (backend= database + algorithm + resources, excludes frontend)
If PR or commit specified, pull the full diff - not just the file list - so hunk ranges are available for Phase 2's confinement check:
# For PR
gh pr diff <pr_number>
# For commit
git diff-tree -p <commit_sha>
From that diff, extract two things and carry both into Phase 2:
- Changed-file list: the paths after each
+++ b/line. - Hunk ranges per file: each
@@ -a,b +c,d @@header gives the new-file line rangectoc+d-1for that hunk. A file can have multiple hunks.
What ships with it
4 files 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.
- 1mo ago Changed · +6 lines 75d7a0432c92
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines · -15 tokens per session e6279ea7cdad
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 1ecb5a71c6a0
- 1mo ago First seen · 131 lines · 143 tokens per session scan A cb7732df9e40
review-perf is a skill published in the GitHub repository mgiovani/cc-arsenal (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 128 tokens to every session and 1,981 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
testing-anti-patterns
Reviews test code to identify and fix common testing anti-patterns including flaky tests, over-mocking, brittle assertions, test interdependency, and hidden test logic. Flags bad patterns, explains the specific defect, and provides corrected implementations. Use when reviewing test code, debugging intermittent or…
structured-code-review
Performs a structured five-stage code review covering requirements compliance, correctness, code quality, testing, and security/performance. Each stage uses targeted checklists and categorized feedback (Blocker/Major/Minor/Nit) with actionable suggestions and rationale. Use when the user asks for code review, PR…
junie
Delegate tasks or get a second opinion from Junie CLI. Infers mode (delegation vs validation) from prompt context. Detects available models at runtime via the CLI. Use when cross-validating code, plans, or architecture with Junie CLI, or offloading work to it. Do not use for tasks that do not benefit from cross-model…
find-simplifications
Use for a periodic repo-wide sweep of qwen-code for accumulated excess surface — dead components and files, orphaned locale keys, exports nothing consumes, added-then-removed scaffolding — filing candidates on a tracking issue and landing only what a maintainer has said yes to. Repo-wide and evidence-first; every…
swarm-pr-review
Run a graph-guided, tool-augmented PR review using context packing, parallel exploration, mandatory repository-agnostic risk-family coverage with dispatch scaled to diff size and risk, independent reviewer validation, critic challenge, and metrics writeback. Use for deep pull request review with low false-positive…
agent-debug-ci
Investigate failed scheduled or nightly GitHub Actions runs on the default branch, determine whether the failure is reproducible and repository-owned, implement the smallest evidence-backed fix, validate it, and open a pull request. Use when a failed nightly CI event starts an agent, or when the standard CI or…