greptimedb-fuzz-ci-failure-investigation

Investigate a failed GreptimeDB fuzz CI target link by downloading GitHub Actions job logs plus fuzz artifacts such as kind logs, monitor dumps, and CSV dumps, then correlate the failure with local GreptimeDB source code. Use when the user provides a failed fuzz CI target/job URL or asks to diagnose GreptimeDB fuzz CI failures.

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

85%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A thorough, highly actionable investigation workflow with strong sequencing and validation. Its main weakness is that all detail lives in a single long file with no progressive disclosure into reference files.

Suggestions

Move the detailed artifact-contents inventory (§4) and layered diagnosis methodology (§5) into a reference file (e.g. references/diagnosis.md) and link from SKILL.md, reducing the main file toward an overview.

Tighten §5.1–5.6 into a condensed checklist; methodological prose like 'This prevents overfitting on the loudest symptom' can be shortened without losing the guidance.

Extract the final response template (§10) and cause taxonomy (§9) into a reference so the core workflow steps stay lean.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Dense, executable guidance that assumes Claude's competence with no padding about basic concepts, though the §5 diagnosis methodology and §4 artifact inventory contain prose that could be trimmed slightly, keeping it just below the lean score-5 anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	Fully executable, copy-paste-ready gh/jq/grep/git commands throughout (metadata capture, log/artifact download, evidence reduction, SHA checkout), covering the common cases concretely.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Ten clearly sequenced numbered steps with explicit validation checkpoints (empty HEAD_SHA exit, expired-artifact handling, SHA-vs-checkout verification) and feedback loops; the read-only scope correctly avoids the destructive-operation cap.	5 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are well-organized and headed, but the ~465-line body is a monolith with no external reference files and no one-level-deep references; content that could be split (artifact inventory §4, diagnosis methodology §5, response template §10) is all inline, fitting the 3 anchor better than 4.	3 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Description

92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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, specific description that states concrete actions and explicit trigger conditions for a well-scoped niche. The only minor gap is synonym coverage in the trigger clause.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'downloading GitHub Actions job logs plus fuzz artifacts such as kind logs, monitor dumps, and CSV dumps, then correlate the failure with local GreptimeDB source code' — providing comprehensive coverage, matching the score-5 anchor.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (investigate by downloading logs/artifacts and correlating with source) and when ('Use when the user provides a failed fuzz CI target/job URL or asks to diagnose GreptimeDB fuzz CI failures') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the 5 anchor exactly.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural trigger phrases users would say ('failed fuzz CI target/job URL', 'diagnose GreptimeDB fuzz CI failures') with good coverage, but a few common synonyms (e.g. 'crash', 'flaky', 'GitHub Actions run') are absent, so it sits above the 3 anchor but below the comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a clear, narrow niche — GreptimeTeam/greptimedb fuzz CI failure investigation — with repo-specific triggers and minimal overlap risk with other skills.	5 / 5
	Total	19 / 20 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: GreptimeTeam/greptimedb
Path: .agents/skills/greptimedb-fuzz-ci-failure-investigation/SKILL.md
Commit: 7fd0a7b

Reviewed: 3 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.