v1.0.0 to v1.0.1

---

name: review-perf

user-invocable: false

author: "Gabriel Trabanco <gtrabanco@users.noreply.github.com>"

license: MIT

description: >

Internal performance review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed

in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks the

changed paths for algorithmic and resource regressions: N+1s, hot-path

allocations, asset weight, and leaks. Findings only; never edits code.

---

# 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)

## Return exactly

```

REVIEW PERF — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |

|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|

| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |

Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)

Summary: <1-2 sentences>

Decision: PASS | FAIL

```

FAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings

never block — they route to the caller's triage step.

## Done when

- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output)

or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.

- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and

no code was changed.