SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Architecture · Version 1.0.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

PostgreSQL Architecture Review Specialist

Make a defensible decision about PostgreSQL architecture boundary review and PostgreSQL failure-mode modeling with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 6 documented failure modes 5 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Reviews architecture boundaries, operating assumptions, and failure behavior in PostgreSQL using schema, query plans, indexes, statistics, and transaction settings and EXPLAIN ANALYZE, buffer reads, lock waits, and WAL or vacuum metrics, with explicit attention to cardinality error or long transaction producing the wrong plan and retaining dead tuples.

₹299 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools.

What this skill helps you do

  • PostgreSQL architecture boundary review
  • PostgreSQL failure-mode modeling
  • PostgreSQL architecture decision record

How PostgreSQL Architecture Review Specialist works

You provide

Schema, query plans, and the real access pattern

It inspects

Plan accuracy and lock behavior for PostgreSQL architecture boundary review

It decides

A PostgreSQL failure-mode modeling change weighed against write cost

You verify

Re-measured plan with buffer reads and timing compared

What it checks first

PostgreSQL Architecture Review Specialist reviews architecture boundaries, operating assumptions, and failure behavior in PostgreSQL using schema, query plans, indexes, statistics, and transaction settings and EXPLAIN ANALYZE, buffer reads, lock waits, and WAL or vacuum metrics, with explicit attention to cardinality error or long transaction producing the wrong plan and retaining dead tuples. Use it when the work involves PostgreSQL architecture boundary review, PostgreSQL failure-mode modeling, PostgreSQL architecture decision record.

  1. The actual query plan with real row counts, not the estimated plan or the query text alone.
  2. Whether the workload is read-heavy, write-heavy, or mixed, since the correct design differs sharply.
  3. Transaction boundaries and duration, because long transactions block vacuum and hold locks.
  4. Index coverage relative to both the filter and the sort, since satisfying one but not the other still costs a sort.
  5. Connection pool behavior, as pool exhaustion presents as database slowness while the database is idle.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • An index that serves the predicate but not the ordering, forcing a full sort for a small LIMIT.
  • A long-running transaction preventing vacuum and causing gradual bloat and plan degradation.
  • Implicit type casting on a join or filter column silently disabling index use.
  • Connection pool exhaustion from long-held connections, appearing as a database problem.
  • A write-heavy table with excessive indexes where insert cost dominates the workload.
  • Statistics stale after a bulk load, so the planner chooses a plan for a table size that no longer exists.

Answers it will reject

  • Adding an index per slow query until write amplification becomes the new bottleneck.
  • Tuning configuration parameters before examining the plan for the dominant query.
  • Interpreting `EXPLAIN` without `ANALYZE`, which reports estimates and proves nothing.
  • Increasing pool size to fix latency caused by lock contention, which adds waiters rather than capacity.

Decision rules it applies

  • Optimize the query that dominates total time, not the one that feels slowest in isolation.
  • Order composite index columns by equality first, then range or sort last.
  • Keep transactions short and never hold one open across an external call.
  • Create and drop indexes concurrently on live tables, accepting the longer build for the absent lock.

Evidence it asks for

  • `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)` to compare estimated with actual rows and attribute I/O.
  • Rank queries by cumulative execution time rather than by single-execution latency.
  • Monitor the oldest open transaction and lock wait counts as standing metrics.

The method inside

  1. Map the artifact, actors, boundaries, and invariants relevant to PostgreSQL architecture boundary review.
  2. Trace concrete failure or abuse paths for PostgreSQL failure-mode modeling; do not report checklist items without a mechanism.
  3. Prioritize PostgreSQL architecture decision record findings by impact, likelihood, confidence, and cost of correction.
  4. Recommend the smallest defensible change, then define how an independent reviewer can verify it.

Deliverables

  • PostgreSQL architecture boundary review assessment
  • PostgreSQL failure-mode modeling decision and action plan
  • PostgreSQL architecture decision record verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Functional and quality requirements
  • Scale, latency, consistency, cost, and compliance constraints
  • Current topology and alternatives considered

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Apply the architecture review specialist to our PostgreSQL system before the next production change. We can provide schema, query plans, indexes, statistics, and transaction settings; the main concern is cardinality error or long transaction producing the wrong plan and retaining dead tuples.

Expected output

Map query planning, MVCC visibility, locking, and durable storage before choosing components. The first design risk to test is cardinality error or long transaction producing the wrong plan and retaining dead tuples. Compare only options that preserve the stated invariant, then record load assumptions, rollback, ownership, and the signal that would reverse the decision.

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • PostgreSQL architecture boundary review: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • PostgreSQL failure-mode modeling: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • PostgreSQL architecture decision record: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Producing a generic reference architecture without requirements
  • Hiding material trade-offs behind best-practice language

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.