Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Audit and improve GitHub Codespaces efficiency. Use this skill when a user wants faster Codespaces startup, lower Codespaces spend, slim devcontainers, right-size machines, tune idle timeout, or scope prebuilds to branches with sustained usage.
.claude/skills/github-codespaces-efficiency/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-23 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
Use this skill as a lean entrypoint for GitHub Codespaces efficiency work. Inspect the repo, identify waste, and load only needed references.
If no .devcontainer/ exists yet, load references/codespaces.md and define a baseline before proceeding with the steps below.
.devcontainer/ or explicit Codespaces configuration questions..devcontainer/ from scratch.references/codespaces.md — devcontainer, machine-sizing, prebuild, idle-timeout guidance, and reporting.references/review-rubric.md — load only for review passes.bashfind .devcontainer -maxdepth 2 -type f gh codespace list repo=$(gh repo view --json nameWithOwner --jq .nameWithOwner) gh api "/repos/$repo/codespaces/machines"
If gh auth fails or the user lacks repo admin scope, proceed with static analysis of .devcontainer/ files; mark machine-type and prebuild recommendations as unverified.
Look for: devcontainer image >2 GB or more than 10 features, machine type larger than usage data supports, missing devcontainer-lock.json (recommend adding — many repos predate lock-file support), prebuilds scoped too broadly, and idle timeout mismatched to usage patterns.
Check each proposed fix against these rules before recommending it:
.devcontainer/ exists; flag (do not drop) changes that restructure an existing config.From the six candidates below, keep only those supported by audit evidence from step 1 and passing all guardrails from step 2. Rank survivors by estimated monthly cost savings (USD). Select all candidates that meet both criteria, up to a maximum of 3.
release/* branches active in the last 14 days, and branches with more than 5 Codespaces per week; disable for all othersWaste sources: top cost or startup-time drivers]
Proposed fixes: top 3 changes supported by audit evidence and passing guardrails]
Validation: proven live / static-only / remaining risk]
Impact:
references/codespaces.mdreferences/review-rubric.md — load when reviewing completed efficiency work| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-23 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted, and 18 counted toward the lift figure. The other 5 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +26 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 18 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.