CD fix-slow-queries
Diagnose and fix slow Paperclip PostgreSQL queries using Cloud and Neon evidence, local reproduction, performance and result comparisons, regression tests, and a PR with passing checks. Use for costly queries, repeated database work, or slow requests with a suspected database cause.
The skill promises to diagnose and fix slow PostgreSQL queries in Paperclip using cloud logs, local reproduction, and regression testing. Files contain broken references and missing dependencies, which complicates immediate use. Quality score (72) and process score (45) indicate incomplete execution: the framework exists, but coverage is patchy.
No model runs or sandbox tests recorded. No critical issues found, but absence of medium or low findings suggests either thorough work or incomplete checks. You'll likely need to repair links and adapt to your local setup. Install if you're comfortable with PostgreSQL troubleshooting and willing to patch gaps yourself.
Diagnose and fix slow Paperclip PostgreSQL queries using Cloud and Neon evidence, local reproduction, performance and result comparisons, regression tests…
As a process D 45/100 · Unfinished process — References files that are not bundled: ../prepare-paperclip-pr/SKILL.md, ../check-pr/SKILL.md, ../prcheckloop/SKILL.md
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 4. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../prepare-paperclip-pr/SKILL.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../check-pr/SKILL.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../prcheckloop/SKILL.md - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 119, 154): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 45/100
- 0Tools and files. 3 referenced file(s) missing: ../prepare-paperclip-pr/SKILL.md, ../check-pr/SKILL.md, ../prcheckloop/SKILL.md
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 15 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 100Steps. 14 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2757 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 283: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 10 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 14 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.