CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

andres-freund-perspective

PostgreSQL 核心 committer Andres Freund 的思维框架与表达方式。基于 6 个调研维度(著作、对话、表达 DNA、他者视角、决策、时间线) 共 2957 行 / 200 KB 一手资料的深度调研,提炼 6 个核心心智模型、10 条决策启发式和完整的表达 DNA。 用途:作为思维顾问,用 Andres Freund 的视角分析 PG 性能/扩展性/AIO/构建现代化等"测量驱动+地基重写"场景, 与 Tom Lane Skill 形成对比视角(一个偏"标准+历史",一个偏"现代工程+测量")。 当用户提到「用 Andres 的视角」「andres 会怎么看」「Andres Freund 模式」「AIO 推动」「Meson 切换」「测量驱动」 「I think / I'm unconvinced」「Greetings, Andres Freund」「PG 性能决策」「地基重写」时使用。 即使用户只是说「帮我用 PG 性能导向 committer 的角度想想」「如果 Andres 会怎么做」 「切换到测量驱动模式」「和 Tom Lane 观点对比」也应触发。 **排除触发(不要激活)**: - 通用 SQL 学习/教学咨询("怎么写 JOIN"、"学 SQL 有什么建议") - PostgreSQL 运维/部署问题(Patroni、pgpool、备份恢复) - 仅提及 Andres Freund 名字作为信息引用("Andres 写了 X commit"作为事实陈述) - 与 PG 性能/现代化基础设施无关的纯 catalog/SQL 语法问题(这是 Tom Lane 的强项,不是本 Skill 的) - **Andres 的个人生活、性格、家庭、地理、私人关系**(公开材料完全无覆盖;用 Tom Lane Skill 也无帮助——应直接拒绝)

62

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/andres-freund-perspective/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

66%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.

The body excels at workflow clarity with a rigorous speculation gate, research protocol, and hard validation blockers, and offers highly actionable templates and checklists. Its principal weakness is conciseness: substantial cross-section repetition and re-explanation inflate it well past a lean token budget, and progressive disclosure could offload more research detail into the references bundle.

Suggestions

Consolidate the repeated mental-model/句式 material: 决策启发式 largely restates 核心心智模型 and 表达 DNA restates the 句式/词汇 rules from 角色扮演规则 — merge or cross-reference instead of duplicating to cut the body toward ~350 lines.

Move the 人物时间线, 智识谱系, and per-model 证据/应用/局限 blocks into references/research/ files (which already exist for these dimensions) and keep SKILL.md as a routing overview, lifting progressive_disclosure toward 5.

Delete concept-explaining padding that assumes Claude lacks PG knowledge (e.g. explaining what AIO/io_uring/Meson are) and keep only the Andres-specific stance and phrasing for each.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

At 733 lines the body is noticeably verbose: the same mental models, 句式 fragments (afaict/WFM/I think), Tom-Lane contrasts, and signature rules are restated across 角色扮演规则, 核心心智模型, 决策启发式, and 表达 DNA, and several sections re-explain concepts Claude already knows about PG internals; it could be roughly halved without losing guidance.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance for a simulation skill — 句式骨架 templates, 关键句式片段, 9-档确定性梯度 table, hard/soft self-check checklists, and 降级开场白模板 — with only minor gaps (some model sections repeat rather than add new actionable detail).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Agentic Protocol (Step 0 Speculation Gate → Step 1 分类 → Step 2 研究 → Step 3 回答) has explicit validation checkpoints, anti-forgery redlines, feedback loops (搜索失败 → 明示未找到, 自检失败 → 修正), and hard blockers (B1-B4), matching the 5-anchor 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists' example.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized into clearly headed sections with a single one-level-deep reference ('调研过程详见 references/research/ 目录') whose six files genuinely exist; however the bulk of the research-derived material (心智模型/启发式/时间线/谱系) is inlined in SKILL.md rather than split into the bundle, leaving minor organization gaps versus the 5-anchor ideal.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

81%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.

The description is strong on triggers, completeness, and distinctiveness, with comprehensive natural trigger phrases and an explicit contrast/exclusion structure against the sibling Tom Lane skill. Its main weakness is specificity: the role-play framing and second-person trigger guidance make the stated 'actions' less concrete than the rubric's high anchors.

Suggestions

Lead the description with concrete deliverable actions in third person (e.g. 'Analyzes PG performance/AIO/modernization questions through Andres Freund's measure-first mental models') before the trigger list, to raise specificity beyond role-play framing.

Trim the long enumeration of trigger phrases to the 3-4 most natural ones and keep the rest in the body, since the description currently rewards verbosity less than concision.

Keep trigger guidance in third person ('Use when the user mentions…') rather than mixing in second-person phrasing to avoid the specificity penalty.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (Andres Freund 思维框架/表达方式) and several concrete artifacts ('6 个核心心智模型、10 条决策启发式和完整的表达 DNA'), but the framing is role-play/simulation rather than discrete executable actions, and the description lapses into second-person trigger guidance ('当用户提到…') which warrants a specificity reduction.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' ('提炼 6 个核心心智模型、10 条决策启发式和完整的表达 DNA…作为思维顾问') and 'when' with a concrete '当用户提到…时使用' trigger clause plus several natural trigger phrases, matching the 5-anchor 'what AND when with concrete trigger phrases' example.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger phrases a user would actually say ('用 Andres 的视角', 'AIO 推动', '测量驱动', '切换到测量驱动模式') plus paraphrase variants ('如果 Andres 会怎么做', '和 Tom Lane 观点对比') and an explicit exclusion list, covering synonyms and multi-variant phrasing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (Andres Freund 现代工程+测量视角) explicitly differentiated from the Tom Lane skill ('与 Tom Lane Skill 形成对比视角') and reinforced by a dedicated 排除触发 list that steers generic SQL/运维/personal-life questions away, minimizing conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

skill_md_line_count

SKILL.md is long (734 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
digoal/blog
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.