New to Claude Skills? Learn how to install them →

dotnet on GitHub

Analyzing .NET Performance

Free

Identify performance anti-patterns in .NET code.

by dotnet5.1k stars on dotnet/skills
7 views
Updated Aug 10, 2026
Get this skill

Free · Opens the source repo

What Analyzing .NET Performance does

The Analyzing .NET Performance skill scans C#/.NET codebases for approximately 50 known performance anti-patterns, providing developers with actionable insights to optimize their applications. It focuses on various aspects of performance, including asynchronous programming, memory management, string handling, collections, LINQ, regex usage, serialization, and I/O operations. By leveraging established patterns from the official .NET performance blog series, this skill distills complex performance issues into clear guidance for developers looking to enhance their code's efficiency.

When using this skill, developers can perform systematic scans of their codebases to identify potential optimization opportunities before releasing their applications. It is particularly useful for auditing hot paths, where performance is critical, and for providing a second opinion after a manual performance review. The skill allows for a tiered severity classification of findings, helping developers prioritize which issues to address first based on their impact on performance.

The skill requires C# source code as input and can optionally take into account the context of hot paths and the target .NET framework version. It offers different scan depths, allowing users to focus on critical issues or perform comprehensive checks. The scanning process involves detecting code signals that indicate specific pattern categories, running relevant detection recipes, and generating a report that includes exact counts of identified issues. This structured approach ensures that developers receive detailed feedback on their code's performance characteristics, enabling them to implement effective fixes.

When to use it

Use this skill when reviewing C#/.NET code for performance optimization or auditing allocation-heavy patterns before release.

When not to use it

Avoid using this skill for algorithmic complexity analysis or on code paths that do not have performance requirements.

What you can build with it

Code Review for Performance Optimization

Use this skill during code reviews to identify potential performance bottlenecks and anti-patterns before deployment.

Pre-release Code Audit

Conduct a thorough scan of your codebase for known performance issues to ensure optimal performance in production.

Second-opinion Performance Analysis

After manual performance reviews, use this skill to validate findings and uncover additional optimization opportunities.

How to install Analyzing .NET Performance

View source

1. Install with the skills CLI

npx skills add dotnet/skills/analyzing-dotnet-performance --agent claude-code

2. Or install it manually

Download the skill folder and drop it into ~/.claude/skills/ for all projects, or .claude/skills/ to scope it to one repo. Restart Claude Code so it picks up the new skill.

Anthropic's agentic coding CLI, and the reference implementation of Agent Skills. Drop a skill folder into ~/.claude/skills and Claude Code loads it automatically whenever a task matches the skill's description. Claude Code docs

Inside SKILL.md

Written by dotnet

.NET Performance Patterns

Scan C#/.NET code for performance anti-patterns and produce prioritized findings with concrete fixes. Patterns sourced from the official .NET performance blog series, distilled to customer-actionable guidance.

When to Use

  • Reviewing C#/.NET code for performance optimization opportunities
  • Auditing hot paths for allocation-heavy or inefficient patterns
  • Systematic scan of a codebase for known anti-patterns before release
  • Second-opinion analysis after manual performance review

When Not to Use

  • Algorithmic complexity analysis — this skill targets API usage patterns, not algorithm design
  • Code not on a hot path with no performance requirements — avoid premature optimization

Inputs

InputRequiredDescription
Source codeYesC# files, code blocks, or repository paths to scan
Hot-path contextRecommendedWhich code paths are performance-critical
Target frameworkRecommended.NET version (some patterns require .NET 8+)
Scan depthOptionalcritical-only, standard (default), or comprehensive

Workflow

Step 1: Load Reference Files (if available)

Try to load references/critical-patterns.md and the topic-specific reference files listed below. These contain detailed detection recipes and grep commands.

If reference files are not found (e.g., in a sandboxed environment or when the skill is embedded as instructions only), skip file loading and proceed directly to Step 3 using the scan recipes listed inline below. Do not spend time searching the filesystem for reference files — if they aren't at the expected relative path, they aren't available.

Step 2: Detect Code Signals and Select Topic Recipes

Scan the code for signals that indicate which pattern categories to check. If reference files were loaded, use their ## Detection sections. Otherwise, use the inline recipes in Step 3.

Signal in CodeTopic
async, await, Task, ValueTaskAsync patterns
Span<, Memory<, stackalloc, ArrayPool, string.Substring, .Replace(, .ToLower(), += in loops, paramsMemory & strings
Regex, [GeneratedRegex], Regex.Match, RegexOptions.CompiledRegex patterns
Dictionary<, List<, .ToList(), .Where(, .Select(, LINQ methods, static readonly Dictionary<Collections & LINQ
JsonSerializer, HttpClient, Stream, FileStreamI/O & serialization

Always check structural patterns (unsealed classes) regardless of signals.

Scan depth controls scope:

  • critical-only: Only critical patterns (deadlocks, >10x regressions)
  • standard (default): Critical + detected topic patterns
  • comprehensive: All pattern categories

Step 3: Scan and Report

For files under 500 lines, read the entire file first — you'll spot most patterns faster than running individual grep recipes. Use grep to confirm counts and catch patterns you might miss visually.

For each relevant pattern category, run the detection recipes below. Report exact counts, not estimates.

Core scan recipes (run these when reference files aren't available):

# Strings & memory
grep -n '\.IndexOf(\"' FILE                    # Missing StringComparison
grep -n '\.Substring(' FILE                    # Substring allocations
grep -En '\.(StartsWith|EndsWith|Contains)\s*\(' FILE  # Missing StringComparison
grep -n '\.ToLower()\|\.ToUpper()' FILE        # Culture-sensitive + allocation
grep -n '\.Replace(' FILE                      # Chained Replace allocations
grep -n 'params ' FILE                         # params array allocation

# Collections & LINQ
grep -n '\.Select\|\.Where\|\.OrderBy\|\.GroupBy' FILE  # LINQ on hot path
grep -n '\.All\|\.Any' FILE                    # LINQ on string/char
grep -n 'new Dictionary<\|new List<' FILE      # Per-call allocation
grep -n 'static readonly Dictionary<' FILE     # FrozenDictionary candidate

# Regex
grep -n 'RegexOptions.Compiled' FILE           # Compiled regex budget
grep -n 'new Regex(' FILE                      # Per-call regex
grep -n 'GeneratedRegex' FILE                  # Positive: source-gen regex

# Structural
grep -n 'public class \|internal class ' FILE  # Unsealed classes
grep -n 'sealed class' FILE                    # Already sealed
grep -n ': IEquatable' FILE                    # Positive: struct equality

Rules:

  • Run every relevant recipe for the detected pattern categories
  • Emit a scan execution checklist before classifying findings — list each recipe and the hit count
  • A result of 0 hits is valid and valuable (confirms good practice)
  • If reference files were loaded, also run their ## Detection recipes

Verify-the-Inverse Rule: For absence patterns, always count both sides and report the ratio (e.g., "N of M classes are sealed"). The ratio determines severity — 0/185 is systematic, 12/15 is a consistency fix.

Step 3b: Cross-File Consistency Check

If an optimized pattern is found in one file, check whether sibling files (same directory, same interface, same base class) use the un-optimized equivalent. Flag as 🟡 Moderate with the optimized file as evidence.

Step 3c: Compound Allocation Check

After running scan recipes, look for these multi-allocation patterns that single-line recipes miss:

  1. Branched .Replace() chains: Methods that call .Replace() across multiple if/else branches — report total allocation count across all branches, not just per-line.
  2. Cross-method chaining: When a public method delegates to another method that itself allocates intermediates (e.g., A calls B which does 3 regex replaces, then A calls C), report the total chain cost as one finding.
  3. Compound += with embedded allocating calls: Lines like result += $"...{Foo().ToLower()}" are 2+ allocations (interpolation + ToLower + concatenation) — flag the compound cost, not just the .ToLower().
  4. string.Format specificity: Distinguish resource-loaded format strings (not fixable) from compile-time literal format strings (fixable with interpolation). Enumerate the actionable sites.

Step 4: Classify and Prioritize Findings

Assign each finding a severity:

SeverityCriteriaAction
🔴 CriticalDeadlocks, crashes, security vulnerabilities, >10x regressionMust fix
🟡 Moderate2-10x improvement opportunity, best practice for hot pathsShould fix on hot paths
ℹ️ InfoPattern applies but code may not be on a hot pathConsider if profiling shows impact

Prioritization rules:

  1. If the user identified hot-path code, elevate all findings in that code to their maximum severity
  2. If hot-path context is unknown, report 🔴 Critical findings unconditionally; report 🟡 Moderate findings with a note: "Impactful if this code is on a hot path"
  3. Never suggest micro-optimizations on code that is clearly not performance-sensitive

Scale-based severity escalation: When the same pattern appears across many instances, escalate severity:

  • 1-10 instances of the same anti-pattern → report at the pattern's base severity
  • 11-50 instances → escalate ℹ️ Info patterns to 🟡 Moderate
  • 50+ instances → escalate to 🟡 Moderate with elevated priority; flag as a codebase-wide systematic issue

Always report exact counts (from scan recipes), not estimates or agent summaries.

Step 5: Generate Findings

Keep findings compact. Each finding is one short block — not an essay. Group by severity (🔴 → 🟡 → ℹ️), not by file.

Format per finding:

#### ID. Title (N instances)
**Impact:** one-line impact statement
**Files:** file1.cs:L1, file2.cs:L2, ... (list locations, don't build tables)
**Fix:** one-line description of the change (e.g., "Add `StringComparison.Ordinal` parameter")
**Caveat:** only if non-obvious (version requirement, correctness risk)

Rules for compact output:

  • No ❌/✅ code blocks for trivial fixes (adding a keyword, parameter, or type change). A one-line fix description suffices.
  • Only include code blocks for non-obvious transformations (e.g., replacing a LINQ chain with a foreach loop, or hoisting a closure).
  • File locations as inline comma-separated list, not a table. Use File.cs:L42 format.
  • No explanatory prose beyond the Impact line — the severity icon already conveys urgency.
  • Merge related findings that share the same fix (e.g., all .ToLower() calls go in one finding, not split by file).
  • Positive findings in a bullet list, not a table. One line per pattern: ✅ Pattern — evidence.

End with a summary table and disclaimer:

| Severity | Count | Top Issue |
|----------|-------|-----------|
| 🔴 Critical | N | ... |
| 🟡 Moderate | N | ... |
| ℹ️ Info | N | ... |

> ⚠️ **Disclaimer:** These results are generated by an AI assistant and are non-deterministic. Findings may include false positives, miss real issues, or suggest changes that are incorrect for your specific context. Always verify recommendations with benchmarks and human review before applying changes to production code.

Validation

Before delivering results, verify:

  • All critical patterns were checked (from reference files or inline recipes)
  • Topic-specific recipes run only when matching signals detected
  • Each finding includes a concrete code fix
  • Scan execution checklist is complete (all recipes run)
  • Summary table included at end

Common Pitfalls

PitfallCorrect Approach
Flagging every Dictionary as needing FrozenDictionaryOnly flag if the dictionary is never mutated after construction
Suggesting Span<T> in async methodsUse Memory<T> in async code; Span<T> only in sync hot paths
Reporting LINQ outside hot pathsOnly flag LINQ in identified hot paths or tight loops; LINQ is acceptable in code that runs infrequently. Since .NET 7, LINQ Min/Max/Sum/Average are vectorized — blanket bans on LINQ are misguided
Suggesting ConfigureAwait(false) in app codeOnly applicable in library code; not primarily a performance concern
Recommending ValueTask everywhereOnly for hot paths with frequent synchronous completion
Flagging new HttpClient() in DI servicesCheck if IHttpClientFactory is already in use
Suggesting [GeneratedRegex] for dynamic patternsOnly flag when the pattern string is a compile-time literal
Suggesting CollectionsMarshal.AsSpan broadlyOnly for ultra-hot paths with benchmarked evidence; adds complexity and fragility
Suggesting unsafe code for micro-optimizationsAvoid unsafe except where absolutely necessary — do not recommend it for micro-optimizations that don't matter. Safe alternatives like Span<T>, stackalloc in safe context, and ArrayPool cover the vast majority of performance needs

Frequently asked questions about Analyzing .NET Performance

Similar skills