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.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.