Comprehensive database schema analysis using 5-expert panel evaluation. PROACTIVELY activate for: (1) schema review, (2) data modeling decisions, (3) database design evaluation, (4) migration planning, (5) normalization analysis. Triggers: "evaluate schema", "review schema", "database design", "data model review", "schema analysis", "evaluate database"
Comprehensive database schema analysis using a 5-perspective expert panel.
Use this skill when you need to:
Invoke the database-schema-evaluator skill for:
$ARGUMENTS
| Parameter | Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
evaluation_depth | comprehensive | Full 5-perspective analysis |
include_alternatives | false | Focus on current schema; enable for redesign |
scoring_rubric| standard |
| Balanced across all dimensions |
The evaluation assembles 5 domain experts:
| Expert | Focus Area | Key Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Data Architect | Normalization, patterns, relationships | Is the schema properly normalized? Are relationships clear? |
| Performance Engineer | Indexing, query optimization, scalability | Will this scale? Are indexes appropriate? |
| Data Integrity Guardian | Constraints, referential integrity, validation | Can invalid data enter? Are constraints complete? |
| Evolution Strategist | Migrations, extensibility, versioning | How hard will changes be? Is it future-proof? |
| Operations Specialist | Backup, maintenance, monitoring | Can we maintain this? Recovery implications? |
Each expert scores on their primary dimensions:
Data Architect:
Performance Engineer:
Data Integrity Guardian:
Evolution Strategist:
Operations Specialist:
The schema evaluation produces:
<schema-evaluation>
<header>
<id>[unique identifier]</id>
<schema_name>[schema identifier]</schema_name>
<evaluation_depth>comprehensive</evaluation_depth>
<overall_score>[1-10]</overall_score>
</header>
<expert-assessments>
<assessment expert="Data Architect">
<score>[1-10]</score>
<findings>
<finding severity="[critical|high|medium|low]">
[Specific issue or observation]
</finding>
</findings>
<recommendations>
<recommendation priority="[1-n]">
[Specific improvement suggestion]
</recommendation>
</recommendations>
</assessment>
<!-- ... more expert assessments ... -->
</expert-assessments>
<consensus-findings>
<strengths>
<strength>[What the schema does well]</strength>
</strengths>
<concerns>
<concern severity="[critical|high|medium|low]" experts="[which experts flagged]">
[Shared concern across experts]
</concern>
</concerns>
</consensus-findings>
<prioritized-recommendations>
<recommendation priority="1" effort="[low|medium|high]" impact="[low|medium|high]">
<description>[What to change]</description>
<rationale>[Why this matters]</rationale>
<example>[Concrete example if applicable]</example>
</recommendation>
</prioritized-recommendations>
<migration-considerations>
[If changes recommended, migration implications]
</migration-considerations>
</schema-evaluation>
After schema evaluation, consider:
/compare-options if multiple schema designs exist/write-reference to document the final schema/research-brief for technology-specific best practices