Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

algolia-performance-tuning

Find where an Algolia search journey spends time, from input handling and network requests to rendering. Compare targeted changes against a measured baseline while checking result relevance and freshness.

OriginalShow the original description

Analyze and optimize an Algolia search path using repository and production evidence instead of universal latency targets. Use when search feels slow, payloads are large, or rendering regresses. Trigger with "tune Algolia performance", "slow Algolia search", or "search latency".

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Good for

  • Investigating slow mobile typeahead search
  • Reducing repeated search requests
  • Checking whether large responses slow rendering
  • Comparing search changes without losing relevance

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 Evidence-Based Performance Tuning

Overview

This skill decomposes perceived search time into input handling, network, provider request, response transfer, transformation, and render work. Optimization starts with an owned baseline and ends with a comparable measurement.

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

  • Set targets from the application's SLO, user geography, device mix, and measured baseline.
  • Inspect record and response shape before changing relevance or faceting settings.
  • Separate query count amplification from individual request latency.
  • Preserve correctness and relevance assertions alongside performance measurements.

Authentication

Run measurements with search-only or secured keys and sanitized representative queries. Do not expose write credentials or sensitive query logs.

Instructions

  1. Define the journey, environment, representative query set, device/network profile, and success criteria.
  2. Capture request count, component timings, payload size, cache behavior, result correctness, and render cost.
  3. Locate the dominant segment before proposing changes.
  4. Test bounded changes such as debouncing, stalled-search handling, requested attributes, query batching, or render work.
  5. Compare before and after with the same harness and inspect relevance and freshness regressions.
  6. Document the accepted change, uncertainty, monitoring signal, and rollback trigger.

Approval Boundaries

Do not change ranking, remove required facets, cache personalized responses, or publish claimed improvements without comparable evidence.

Output

Return the benchmark protocol, baseline distribution, bottleneck attribution, tested changes, before/after evidence, relevance checks, and rollout guardrails.

Error Handling

ConditionResponse
Results are noisyIncrease samples and control geography, device, cache, and query set.
Faster response changes hitsReject or obtain product acceptance for the relevance tradeoff.
Client emits duplicate requestsFix lifecycle or input handling before provider tuning.
No SLO existsReport the baseline without inventing a target.

Examples

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

Input:

journey=mobile-typeahead; queries=approved-100; network=recorded-profile

Expected handoff:

dominant=duplicate-client-requests; requests-keystroke=3-to-1; relevance=unchanged

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 25, 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 25, 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 25, 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 25, 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 25, 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 25, 2026

See all skills by jeremylongshore

Report a problem with this skill