agentleFS
EndikaEndika/eskills/skills/perf-bar/SKILL.md

perf-bar

Skill0 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when assessing performance or algorithmic soundness — Big-O on hot paths, N+1 queries, Supabase egress, and benchmarking hard challenges; feeds the SPIKE sub-phase and per-task review.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When the task is flagged hard-tech: in the SPIKE, benchmark candidate approaches on representative input before committing the plan — …

    line 45

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

perf-bar

Overview

My performance/algorithmic bar. Usable standalone on a diff, fed into the SPIKE sub-phase of eskills:task-flow (approach selection), and invoked by its per-task review. It gets its own lens because bottlenecks are a recurring core challenge. (This is the 4th lens — the hard cap; a new lens must displace one.)

Hot-path checklist

  • Big-O where it matters. Profile or reason about complexity on hot paths; an O(n²) loop on a small list is fine, on a hot path it isn't. Don't micro-optimize cold code.
  • N+1 queries. A query inside a loop over rows → batch it, join it, or prefetch.
  • Payload size, not just row count. What crosses the wire per operation? Big blobs, over-fetching, sending a whole row when a version number would do.

Per-stack hot-spots

Same lens, applied to the stack in play — the footgun I hit most in each:

  • React / Vite: wasted re-renders → memoize (memo/useMemo/useCallback), stable list keys, split context; virtualize long lists. Profile with the React DevTools profiler, don't guess. Rule-level detail (derive in render, derived-boolean subscriptions, content-visibility, localStorage discipline) in references/react.md; chunking, pre-bundling and what hashed chunks mean at deploy time in references/vite-build.md.
  • Django: ORM N+1 → select_related (FK) / prefetch_related (M2M); fetch only needed columns (.only()/.values()); never run a query inside a template or loop.
  • Flask / FastAPI: blocking I/O on an async path — a sync DB/HTTP call inside async def stalls the event loop → use an async client or offload to a threadpool; keep CPU-bound work off the loop.
  • Kotlin coroutines: blocking work on the wrong dispatcher → Dispatchers.IO for blocking calls, wrap with withContext; no runBlocking on hot paths; don't re-collect cold Flows needlessly.

Supabase egress — my binding limit

The Free-tier wall is egress (bytes transmitted), not DB size. Egress ≈ blob_size × updates × connected_clients. Levers, in order:

  1. Cap unbounded growth. Any field that grows per action (history, trash, logs) needs a hard cap — uncapped blobs grow quadratically and blow the limit.
  2. Don't ship the whole row on every change. Broadcast only {version} over Realtime; fetch the full payload only when the remote version is newer (version-gated fetch).
  3. Write-through the local cache so a client doesn't refetch its own write.

Hard challenges

When the task is flagged hard-tech: in the SPIKE, benchmark candidate approaches on representative input before committing the plan — measure, don't guess. Keep the micro-benchmark; it's the evidence the approach was chosen on merit.

Output

Report findings as location → cost (Big-O / bytes / queries) → the lever. Separate a measured regression from a theoretical one; prefer numbers.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.