Use when optimizing a slow path or reasoning about cost/hot paths. GitNexus reveals call STRUCTURE (depth, fan-in, repeated work) — pair with a real profiler for runtime numbers. Examples: \"this endpoint is slow\", \"find the hot path\", \"why is this expensive\", \"reduce redundant work\".
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ReidenXerx/bearing --skill bearing-performance --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Bearing Performance?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/reidenxerx-bearing-performance)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: bearing-performance
description: "Use when optimizing a slow path or reasoning about cost/hot paths. GitNexus reveals call STRUCTURE (depth, fan-in, repeated work) — pair with a real profiler for runtime numbers. Examples: \"this endpoint is slow\", \"find the hot path\", \"why is this expensive\", \"reduce redundant work\"."
---
# Performance work with GitNexus
<!-- BEGIN GENERATED: graph-uncertainty — bearing regenerates this block; edits here are replaced on update -->
## The graph can be wrong
A zero is not absence; a near-0.5 `r.confidence` edge is a lead, not proof (~92% of `USES`); a count
can be a floor — `impact` says which in `epistemic`. Before a conclusion that matters, confirm with a
scoped `Grep` (allowed here, not a gate violation) and say which check you ran.
<!-- END GENERATED: graph-uncertainty -->
GitNexus does **not** profile runtime — it exposes the *structure* that makes code expensive: deep call chains, high fan-in hubs, work repeated across a flow, and values recomputed instead of reused. Use it to **localize** the cost, then confirm with a profiler/benchmark.
## Workflow
```
1. query({search_query: "<slow concept>", goal: "hot path"}) → orient on the flow
2. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/process/<flow> → see the chain + step order
3. trace({from: "<entry>", to: "<expensive sink>"}) → exact call path (depth = cost proxy)
4. cypher (CALLS variable-length / fan-in) → deep chains + high-fan-in hubs
5. pdg_query({mode: "flows", target}) → values recomputed vs reused
6. impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) BEFORE optimizing → don't break callers
7. confirm with a profiler/benchmark, then detect_changes → verify the win + scope
```
> Stale index → `npm run bearing:agent-refresh` (autonomous). PDG steps need `analyze --pdg`.
## Structural cost signals (what to look for)
| Signal | Graph query | Why it's expensive |
| --- | --- | --- |
| **Deep chain** | `trace`, or `cypher` `CALLS*` variable-length path | Long synchronous call depth on a hot flow |
| **High fan-in hub** | `impact` upstream (many d=1 callers) / `cypher` count callers | Called from everywhere — small cost × huge frequency |
| **Repeated work** | `pdg_query flows` — same def reaching many uses | A value recomputed instead of hoisted/cached |
| **Work inside a flow step** | READ `process/<name>` — a heavy symbol mid-loop-ish flow | Per-item cost on a collection flow |
| **Cross-layer chatter** | `cypher` cross-cluster `CALLS` | N+1 / round-trips across a boundary (e.g. per-row DB call) |
## Example: "the report endpoint is slow"
```
1. query({search_query: "report generation", goal: "hot path"})
→ process: ReportFlow (buildReport → fetchRows → formatRow → serialize)
2. trace({from: "buildReport", to: "fetchRows"})
→ buildReport → enrich → formatRow → fetchRows (fetchRows is 1 hop under a per-row formatter)
3. cypher: callers of fetchRows
→ formatRow CALLS fetchRows → classic N+1 (a DB call per row)
4. Fix: hoist fetchRows out of formatRow (batch). impact({target:"fetchRows"}) first.
5. Benchmark before/after; detect_changes to confirm only ReportFlow moved.
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!