CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tom-lane-perspective

PostgreSQL 核心 committer Tom Lane 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 2421 行 / 160 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 Tom Lane 的视角分析开源项目治理问题、审视 patch 评审、调试 PostgreSQL 相关决策、 处理"维护者 vs 运动员"张力等场景。 当用户提到「用 Tom Lane 的视角」「tgl 会怎么看」「Tom Lane 模式」「regards, tom lane」「I object, I'll rewrite」 「Tom Lane 风格评审」「patch 评审」「commitfest」「维护者 vs 运动员」「It's hard to argue that」「Let's just」 「undo thinko」「以 PG committer 身份」「core team 视角」时使用。即使用户只是说「帮我用 PG 核心 committer 的角度想想」 「如果 Tom Lane 会怎么做」「切换到 PostgreSQL 治理模式」「PG 什么时候支持 X」「tgl 会怎么 review」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 Tom Lane 名字作为信息引用("Tom Lane 写了 X commit"作为事实陈述) - 与开源治理/PG 内部决策无关的纯技术问答

59

Quality

69%

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/tom-lane-perspective/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%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 content is a well-structured, highly actionable persona playbook with a clear agentic workflow and validation checkpoints, but it is markedly verbose and inlines the bulk of the reference material (models, heuristics, DNA, timeline) instead of leaning on the bundled research files, hurting both conciseness and progressive disclosure.

Suggestions

Move the per-model 证据/应用/局限 evidence blocks and the full 人物时间线 table into references/research/ files, keeping SKILL.md as a compact overview with one-line model summaries and links — this would simultaneously improve conciseness and progressive_disclosure.

De-duplicate the 确定性梯度 table, which appears in Step 3.C, the 表达 DNA section, and again in the self-check — keep a single canonical table and cross-reference it.

Tighten the 身份卡 and 智识谱系 sections to the few facts Claude cannot infer from the persona framing; remove biographical padding that does not change outputs.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is ~640 lines with substantial padding — the identity card, repeated certainty-gradient tables (appearing three times), and lengthy citation/evidence blocks restate material a competent Claude could derive once told the persona, fitting the 'noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections' anchor.

2 / 5

Actionability

It provides concrete, usable guidance: copy-paste句式骨架, exact signature phrase 'regards, tom lane', specific tool-use instructions (mcp__MiniMax__web_search, git.postgresql.org, message-id formats), and a runnable self-check checklist; minor gaps are that many 'cases' are paraphrased rather than executable artifacts.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The agentic protocol is explicitly sequenced (Step 0 Speculation Gate → Step 1 classify → Step 2 research → Step 3 answer) with an embedded self-check checklist and escape hatches; validation checkpoints exist (反伪造红线, 确定性梯度审计, self-check command), so it sits above the 'clear sequence with most checkpoints' anchor but below 5 due to some implicit retry loops.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure exists (clear section headers and a real references/research/ bundle of 6 files pointed to in the appendix), but the SKILL.md body itself inlines ~600 lines of mental models, heuristics, DNA, and timeline that read as the full reference material rather than an overview pointing one level deep, fitting 'some structure but content that should be separate is inline'.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

82%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 highly complete and distinctive, with rich bilingual trigger phrases and explicit use/exclusion guidance that clearly answers both 'what' and 'when'. Specificity is the weakest dimension: the actions are framed as advisory rather than enumerated discrete operations, though still concrete.

Suggestions

Replace the abstract '作为思维顾问...分析...审视...调试...处理' framing with a tighter list of discrete actions (e.g. 'Reviews patches, critiques design proposals, reconstructs PG decision rationale, role-plays Tom Lane in governance debates') to lift specificity toward the 4-5 anchors.

Trim the longest idiosyncratic trigger strings (e.g. 'undo thinko', 'It\'s hard to argue that') that users rarely say verbatim, and keep the highest-probability natural phrases to sharpen trigger quality without losing coverage.

Consider stating the single most common natural-language entry phrase up front before the dense trigger list, so the most frequent use case is immediately legible.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain and several concrete applications ('分析开源项目治理问题、审视 patch 评审、调试 PostgreSQL 相关决策、处理维护者 vs 运动员张力'), but the actions are abstract 'use as thinking advisor' verbs rather than a comprehensive list of discrete concrete operations, fitting the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' (思维框架/心智模型/表达 DNA, thinking advisor role) and 'when' with a long concrete 'Use when...' trigger clause plus an explicit exclusion list, matching the 'clearly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases' anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural-phrase coverage of both English and Chinese triggers ('regards, tom lane', 'I object, I\'ll rewrite', 'tgl 会怎么 review', 'commitfest', 'patch 评审') plus synonyms and rephrasings; a few niche phrases are idiosyncratic rather than things users naturally say, leaving minor gaps versus the comprehensive 5-anchor.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (Tom Lane persona for PG governance/patch review) with distinctive signature triggers like 'regards, tom lane' and 'I object, I\'ll rewrite', plus an explicit exclusion list that actively steers away from generic SQL/ops skills, yielding minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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 (658 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.