event-store-design

Design and implement event stores for event-sourced systems. Use when building event sourcing infrastructure, choosing event store technologies, or implementing event persistence patterns.

1.15x

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

99%

1.15x

Average score across 3 eval scenarios

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

80%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A highly actionable, token-efficient reference packed with executable templates, but it is structured as an inline monolith rather than a progressive-disclosure overview plus separate detail files, and it lacks an explicit sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add a short sequenced 'Design workflow' (pick requirements → choose technology from the comparison → apply matching template → verify with optimistic-concurrency/idempotency checks) with explicit validation checkpoints to lift workflow_clarity.

Move the four full code implementations (Python asyncpg, EventStoreDB, DynamoDB, and the SQL schema) into separate files under references/ and keep SKILL.md as an overview that links to them one level deep.

Trim the inline requirements and best-practices tables to only the non-obvious points, since append-only/ordering/versioning are well-known event-sourcing properties.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is reference-dense (comparison tables, ASCII diagram, code) with almost no prose explaining concepts Claude already knows; tokens are concrete and earn their place. Not a 2 because it does not pad with library/concept exposition.	3 / 3
Actionability	Provides four complete, executable implementations (PostgreSQL schema, Python asyncpg store, EventStoreDB client, DynamoDB store) plus concrete SQL/index definitions — fully copy-paste ready. Not a 2 because the code is real, not pseudocode.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Content is organized as reference/templates rather than a sequenced design workflow; there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops for the overall build-an-event-store process. Not a 3 because no ordered steps with checkpoints are given; not a 1 because sections (requirements → schema → implementation → best practices) imply a loose sequence.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are clearly headed and organized, but the four full code implementations and all detail live inline in a ~430-line SKILL.md with no separate reference files (none exist in references/scripts/assets). Matches the anchor where content that should be separate is inline. Not a 3 because nothing is split out or signaled as one-level-deep references.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, concise description that states concrete capabilities and provides explicit 'Use when' triggers in third-person voice, covering both what and when with minimal padding.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Design and implement event stores', 'building event sourcing infrastructure', 'choosing event store technologies', 'implementing event persistence patterns' — matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly answers what ('Design and implement event stores for event-sourced systems') and when ('Use when building event sourcing infrastructure, choosing event store technologies, or implementing event persistence patterns').	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Uses natural terms a user would actually say ('event sourcing', 'event store technologies', 'event persistence patterns') with good coverage and no jargon-only phrasing.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear niche (event-sourced systems) with distinct triggers, making conflict with unrelated skills unlikely; not a 2 because the domain is tightly scoped.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: Dicklesworthstone/pi_agent_rust
Commit: abece4a

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.