Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

algolia-data-handling

Review records and user events sent to Algolia. Maps data flows, identifies unnecessary fields, and develops correction and deletion procedures with verification evidence, giving privacy owners a technical basis for reviewing data handling.

OriginalShow the original description

Design and audit the data lifecycle for records and user events sent to Algolia. Use when minimizing indexed fields, handling deletion requests, or documenting retention and privacy boundaries. Trigger with "Algolia privacy", "delete Algolia user data", or "index data review".

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Good for

  • Reduce unnecessary fields in search records
  • Plan record and event deletion for user requests
  • Check how source data corrections reach Algolia
  • Document data flows and retention responsibilities

Files included (2)

  • SKILL.md4.0 KB
  • references/official-docs.md1.3 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Algolia Data Handling Review

Overview

This skill maps which data leaves the source system, how it becomes searchable records or events, and how correction and deletion propagate. It does not claim legal compliance; it produces technical evidence for the responsible privacy owner.

Prerequisites

  • A named repository, environment, and Algolia application or index in scope
  • The local lockfile and installed client types as implementation authority
  • A safe read-only query or explicitly disposable test target
  • Current first-party documentation for any provider behavior that affects the change

Tool Discipline

Use Read, Glob, and Grep to inspect local code, configuration names, tests, and dependency versions. Use WebFetch only for current official Algolia documentation. Use Write or Edit only after identifying the target files, constraints, and verification plan.

Current Contract

  • Index only fields required for retrieval, ranking, filtering, display, or approved analytics.
  • Treat attributesToRetrieve as response shaping, not as a substitute for excluding sensitive data from records.
  • Keep source-system identity mappings so corrections and deletions are reproducible.
  • Handle record deletion and Insights user-token deletion as separate surfaces with separate evidence.

Authentication

Use a restricted backend write key for record changes and the documented authorization for user-data deletion. Never include raw secrets or direct personal identifiers in logs or example events.

Instructions

  1. Inventory record fields, derived attributes, event fields, user tokens, environments, and downstream exports.
  2. Classify each field by purpose, sensitivity, source authority, and deletion requirement.
  3. Remove unnecessary fields before indexing and test that UI and ranking behavior still work.
  4. Implement idempotent correction and deletion paths with request IDs and target indices.
  5. Verify absence using bounded lookups and preserve evidence without retaining the deleted value.
  6. Document retention ownership, incident escalation, and gaps for privacy or legal review.

Approval Boundaries

Do not make legal conclusions, bulk-delete records, change retention policy, or expose protected values while verifying a request.

Output

Return the data-flow map, field inventory, minimization changes, deletion/correction procedure, verification evidence, unresolved provider retention questions, and named policy owner.

Error Handling

ConditionResponse
Identity mapping missingStop and reconcile the source identity before deletion.
Deletion task incompleteRetain the task ID and verify state before closing.
Event token contains PIIStop sending it and escalate remediation.
Policy answer unavailableRecord the question for the privacy owner or provider.

Examples

Use this compact input and expected handoff to calibrate scope and evidence quality.

Input:

request=privacy-123; surfaces=records,events; indices=customer_search

Expected handoff:

records=removed-and-verified; events=requested; legal-determination=not-made

Resources

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Add a synthetic-data CI gate for customer-owned Abridge integration code. Test consent handling, note-review handoffs, redaction, and rollback behavior with mocked vendor boundaries, without connecting CI to a live Abridge or EHR tenant.

  • Adding regression checks to an Abridge integration repository
  • Testing consent and note-release handling
  • Checking logs for sensitive data exposure
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Triage Abridge recording, note review, Epic handoff, and access problems using observed symptoms and approved guidance. Identify the affected workflow stage, organize a minimal timeline, and prepare a redacted escalation record for the responsible team.

  • Separate recording problems from upload failures
  • Investigate note creation delays and editor issues
  • Identify the responsible team for Epic handoff failures
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Map and review an Abridge clinical documentation workflow from consent and recording through draft review, evidence checks, edits, and final disposition. Keep clinician approval explicit, identify failure exits, and separate verified facts from tenant-specific details and pending approvals.

  • Map a clinical note workflow for a care setting
  • Check where consent and patient identity are verified
  • Review draft notes against linked evidence before sign-off
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Audit how clinician-reviewed Abridge note sections map into Epic templates and downstream workflows. Use approved test records to document destinations, exceptions, evidence, rollback steps, and a go or no-go decision for a specific environment.

  • Checking Abridge note section mappings to Epic templates
  • Auditing a department’s approved documentation handoff
  • Preparing test evidence and a go or no-go decision
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Review Abridge adoption and workflow value using local usage records, clinician feedback, and verified contract costs. Build an evidence based decision table covering adoption, quality, support burden, and options to expand, hold, or improve the rollout.

  • Reviewing adoption after an Abridge rollout
  • Preparing evidence for a renewal decision
  • Comparing workflow outcomes across care settings
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

Prepare a bounded support bundle for an Abridge issue using allowlisted operational details such as versions, coarse timestamps, and correlation references. Exclude recordings, transcripts, patient identifiers, credentials, and unrestricted logs, then document redactions and review details.

  • Preparing reviewed evidence for an Abridge support case
  • Documenting redactions and excluded data
  • Collecting approved operational details for an incident
jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace2.9KUpdated Oct 23, 2026

See all skills by jeremylongshore

Report a problem with this skill