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 commands block with a bench command 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 commands for 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 via init-workspace's Performance tooling round.

Materiality bar

Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.

Return exactly

REVIEW PERF — scope: <scope>

| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what>  | critical|major|minor | <file:line — or, for measured findings, `<cmd> → base <x> / change <y> (<±z%>)`> | <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.