@khalidsaidi/skillrunner 0.1.2 → 0.1.3

package/dist/registry/skills/openai-notion-research-documentation/upstream/evaluations/research-to-database.json

@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+{
+  "name": "Research with Database Integration",
+  "skills": ["research-documentation"],
+  "query": "Research competitor pricing strategies and add to our Research database",
+  "expected_behavior": [
+    "Searches for competitor and pricing information using Notion:notion-search",
+    "Applies appropriate search strategy (see reference/advanced-search.md patterns)",
+    "Fetches relevant pages using Notion:notion-fetch and synthesizes findings",
+    "Recognizes need to add to database (mentioned in query)",
+    "Searches for or asks about the Research database location",
+    "Fetches database using Notion:notion-fetch to get schema, data sources, and properties",
+    "Identifies correct data source from <data-source> tags if multiple exist",
+    "Creates page with appropriate database properties (Type: Competitor Analysis, Category, Tags, Date, Status, etc.)",
+    "Uses parent: { data_source_id: 'collection://...' } for correct database placement",
+    "Includes research content using Competitor Analysis format (see reference/formats.md)",
+    "Sets all required properties from schema with correct values",
+    "Cites sources using mention-page tags per reference/citations.md"
+  ],
+  "success_criteria": [
+    "Page is created in correct database using data_source_id as parent",
+    "All required database properties are set correctly",
+    "Property values match available options from fetched schema",
+    "Content follows Competitor Analysis format structure",
+    "Sources are cited with proper mention-page tags",
+    "Title is descriptive (e.g., 'Competitor Pricing Analysis')",
+    "Research synthesizes findings rather than just listing sources"
+  ]
+}
+

package/dist/registry/skills/openai-notion-research-documentation/upstream/examples/competitor-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+# Example: Competitor Analysis
+
+## User Request
+
+> "Research competitor pricing models and create a comparison document"
+
+## Workflow Execution
+
+### Step 1: Search for Competitor Information
+
+```
+Notion:notion-search
+query: "competitor pricing"
+query_type: "internal"
+filters: {
+  created_date_range: {
+    start_date: "2024-01-01"
+  }
+}
+```
+
+**Results Found:**
+- "Competitor Analysis - Stripe" (Product)
+- "Market Research Q3 2024" (Strategy)
+- "Pricing Strategy Discussion" (Product)
+- "Competitor Feature Matrix" (Product)
+
+### Step 2: Fetch and Analyze
+
+```
+Notion:notion-fetch for each page
+```
+
+**Extracted Information:**
+
+**Stripe**:
+- Pay-as-you-go: 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction
+- No monthly fees
+- Volume discounts available
+
+**Square**:
+- Pay-as-you-go: 2.6% + $0.10 per transaction
+- Monthly plan: $29/month with lower rates
+- Hardware costs separate
+
+**PayPal**:
+- Standard: 3.49% + $0.49 per transaction
+- Advanced: $30/month + 2.59% + $0.49
+- Multi-currency fees
+
+**Adyen**:
+- Interchange++ pricing model
+- Custom enterprise pricing
+- Setup and monthly fees apply
+
+### Step 3: Create Comparison Document
+
+```
+Notion:notion-create-pages
+
+pages: [{
+  properties: {
+    "title": "Competitor Pricing Analysis - Payment Processors"
+  },
+  content: "[Comparison document using template]"
+}]
+```
+
+## Output Document
+
+```markdown
+# Competitor Pricing Analysis - Payment Processors
+
+**Date**: October 14, 2025  
+**Research Team**: Product Strategy
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+We analyzed four major payment processor competitors: Stripe, Square, PayPal, and Adyen. Pricing models vary from simple pay-as-you-go (Stripe) to complex interchange-plus (Adyen). Key insight: All competitors offer volume discounts for high-transaction merchants, with breakpoints typically at $100K/month processing volume.
+
+## Comparison Matrix
+
+| Feature | Stripe | Square | PayPal | Adyen |
+|---------|--------|--------|--------|-------|
+| **Base Rate** | 2.9% + $0.30 | 2.6% + $0.10 | 3.49% + $0.49 | Interchange++ |
+| **Monthly Fee** | $0 | $0-29 | $0-30 | Custom |
+| **Volume Discounts** | Yes, >$80K | Yes, >$250K | Yes, >$100K | Yes, custom |
+| **Setup Fee** | $0 | $0 | $0 | $1,000-5,000 |
+| **Multi-currency** | 1% extra | 3% extra | 3-4% extra | Included |
+| **Chargeback Fee** | $15 | $15-25 | $20 | Custom |
+| **Target Market** | Startups-Enterprise | Small-Medium | Small-Medium | Enterprise |
+
+## Detailed Analysis
+
+### Stripe
+
+**Pricing Structure**:
+- **Standard**: 2.9% + $0.30 per successful card charge
+- **Volume discounts**: Available for businesses processing >$80,000/month
+- **International cards**: +1% fee
+- **Currency conversion**: 1% above market rate
+
+**Strengths**:
+- Simple, transparent pricing
+- No setup fees or monthly minimums
+- Excellent developer experience
+- Quick onboarding
+
+**Weaknesses**:
+- Higher per-transaction fee for high volume
+- Volume discounts less aggressive than Adyen
+
+**Best for**: Startups and growth-stage companies needing quick integration
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">Competitor Analysis - Stripe</mention-page>
+
+### Square
+
+**Pricing Structure**:
+- **Pay-as-you-go**: 2.6% + $0.10 per tap, dip, or swipe
+- **Keyed-in**: 3.5% + $0.15
+- **Plus plan**: $29/month for lower rates (2.5% + $0.10)
+- **Premium plan**: Custom pricing
+
+**Strengths**:
+- Lowest per-transaction fee for in-person
+- All-in-one hardware + software
+- No long-term contracts
+
+**Weaknesses**:
+- Higher rates for online/keyed transactions
+- Hardware costs ($49-$299)
+- Less suitable for online-only businesses
+
+**Best for**: Brick-and-mortar retail and restaurants
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">Market Research Q3 2024</mention-page>
+
+### PayPal
+
+**Pricing Structure**:
+- **Standard**: 3.49% + $0.49 per transaction
+- **Advanced**: $30/month + 2.59% + $0.49
+- **Payments Pro**: Additional $30/month for direct credit card processing
+
+**Strengths**:
+- Huge customer base (PayPal checkout)
+- Buyer protection increases trust
+- International reach (200+ countries)
+
+**Weaknesses**:
+- Highest per-transaction fees
+- Complex fee structure
+- Account holds and reserves common
+
+**Best for**: Businesses where PayPal brand trust matters (e-commerce, marketplaces)
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">Pricing Strategy Discussion</mention-page>
+
+### Adyen
+
+**Pricing Structure**:
+- **Interchange++**: Actual interchange + scheme fees + fixed markup
+- **Setup fee**: $1,000-5,000 (negotiable)
+- **Monthly minimum**: Typically $10,000+ processing volume
+- **Per-transaction**: Interchange + 0.6% + $0.12 (example)
+
+**Strengths**:
+- Most transparent cost structure at scale
+- Lowest effective rate for high volume
+- True multi-currency (100+ currencies)
+- Direct connections to schemes
+
+**Weaknesses**:
+- Complex pricing requires analysis
+- High minimums ($10K+/month)
+- Longer integration time
+- Not suitable for small businesses
+
+**Best for**: Enterprise with $1M+/month processing volume
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">Competitor Feature Matrix</mention-page>
+
+## Pricing Trends & Insights
+
+### Volume-Based Discounting
+All competitors offer discounts at scale:
+- **Entry point**: $80K-$250K/month processing
+- **Typical discount**: 10-30 basis points reduction
+- **Negotiation leverage**: Begins at $500K/month+
+
+### Hidden Costs to Consider
+
+| Cost Type | Stripe | Square | PayPal | Adyen |
+|-----------|--------|--------|--------|-------|
+| Chargeback | $15 | $15-25 | $20 | $15-25 |
+| Account verification | $0 | $0 | $0 | Varies |
+| PCI compliance | $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
+| Currency conversion | 1% | 3% | 3-4% | 0% |
+| Refund fees | Returned | Returned | Not returned | Varies |
+
+### Market Positioning
+
+```
+High Volume / Enterprise
+    ↑
+    |                    Adyen
+    |                      
+    |         Stripe             
+    |    
+    |  Square    PayPal
+    |
+    └──────────────────→
+      Small / Simple        Complex / International
+```
+
+## Strategic Implications
+
+### For Startups (<$100K/month)
+**Recommended**: Stripe
+- Lowest friction to start
+- No upfront costs
+- Great documentation
+- Acceptable rates at this scale
+
+### For Growing Companies ($100K-$1M/month)
+**Recommended**: Stripe or Square
+- Negotiate volume discounts
+- Evaluate interchange++ if international
+- Consider Square if in-person dominant
+
+### For Enterprises (>$1M/month)
+**Recommended**: Adyen or Negotiated Stripe
+- Interchange++ models save significantly
+- Direct scheme connections
+- Multi-region capabilities matter
+- ROI on integration complexity
+
+## Recommendations
+
+1. **Immediate**: Benchmark our current 2.8% + $0.25 against Stripe's standard
+2. **Short-term**: Request volume discount quote from Stripe at our current $150K/month
+3. **Long-term**: Evaluate Adyen when we cross $1M/month threshold
+
+## Next Steps
+
+- [ ] Request detailed pricing proposal from Stripe for volume discounts
+- [ ] Create pricing calculator comparing all 4 at different volume levels
+- [ ] Interview customers about payment method preferences
+- [ ] Analyze our transaction mix (domestic vs international, card types)
+
+## Sources
+
+### Primary Research
+- <mention-page url="...">Competitor Analysis - Stripe</mention-page>
+- <mention-page url="...">Market Research Q3 2024</mention-page>
+- <mention-page url="...">Pricing Strategy Discussion</mention-page>
+- <mention-page url="...">Competitor Feature Matrix</mention-page>
+
+### External References
+- Stripe.com pricing page (Oct 2025)
+- Square pricing documentation
+- PayPal merchant fees
+- Adyen pricing transparency report
+```
+
+## Key Success Factors
+
+1. **Structured comparison**: Matrix format for quick scanning
+2. **Multiple dimensions**: Price, features, target market
+3. **Strategic recommendations**: Not just data, but implications
+4. **Visual elements**: Table and positioning diagram
+5. **Actionable next steps**: Clear recommendations
+6. **Comprehensive sources**: Internal research + external validation
+
+## Workflow Pattern Demonstrated
+
+- **Date-filtered search** (recent information only)
+- **Multiple competitor synthesis** (4 different companies)
+- **Comparison template** (matrix + detailed analysis)
+- **Strategic layer** (implications and recommendations)
+- **Action-oriented** (next steps included)
+

package/dist/registry/skills/openai-notion-research-documentation/upstream/examples/market-research.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+# Example: Market Research
+
+**User Request**: "Research the current state of AI coding assistants market and create a summary document in Notion"
+
+## Workflow
+
+### 1. Search
+```
+Notion:notion-search
+query: "AI coding assistants market"
+```
+Found 3 relevant pages across Engineering, Strategy, and Product teamspaces.
+
+### 2. Fetch & Analyze
+```
+Notion:notion-fetch (3x)
+```
+Extracted market size, competitive landscape, technology trends from source pages.
+
+### 3. Create Documentation
+```
+Notion:notion-create-pages
+```
+
+## Output (Condensed)
+
+```markdown
+# AI Coding Assistants Market Research - Oct 2025
+
+## Executive Summary
+The AI coding assistant market is experiencing 150%+ YoY growth. GitHub Copilot dominates with 60% share, but specialized tools are gaining traction in specific niches.
+
+## Key Findings
+
+### Market Size and Growth
+$800M in 2024 → $2.5B projected by 2026. Developer adoption: 23% (2023) → 47% (2024).
+Source: <mention-page url="...">Market Trends Q3 2025</mention-page>
+
+### Competitive Landscape
+- GitHub Copilot: 60% (strong IDE integration)
+- Cursor: 15% (rapid growth, full IDE)
+- Tabnine: 10% (enterprise, on-premise)
+- Cody: 5% (codebase-aware)
+- CodeWhisperer: 8% (AWS integration)
+Source: <mention-page url="...">AI Tools Competitive Analysis</mention-page>
+
+### Technology Trends
+Key differentiators: context awareness, customization, multi-modal interfaces, code verification.
+Source: <mention-page url="...">Developer Tools Landscape</mention-page>
+
+## Next Steps
+1. Monitor Cursor growth and feature releases
+2. Evaluate Cody's codebase-aware capabilities
+3. Document enterprise security/compliance requirements
+4. Track pricing trends
+```
+
+## Key Takeaways
+- Found relevant pages across multiple teamspaces
+- Synthesized competitive, market, and technical perspectives
+- Used proper citations linking to source pages
+- Created actionable recommendations

package/dist/registry/skills/openai-notion-research-documentation/upstream/examples/technical-investigation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,233 @@
+# Example: Technical Investigation
+
+## User Request
+
+> "Research our current caching strategy and create a technical summary"
+
+## Workflow Execution
+
+### Step 1: Search for Caching Information
+
+```
+Notion:notion-search
+query: "caching strategy architecture"
+query_type: "internal"
+teamspace_id: "engineering-teamspace-id"
+```
+
+**Results Found:**
+- "System Architecture Overview" (Engineering)
+- "Redis Implementation Guide" (Backend Docs)
+- "Performance Optimization - Q3 2024" (Engineering)
+- "API Caching Decision Record" (Architecture)
+
+### Step 2: Fetch Relevant Pages
+
+```
+Notion:notion-fetch
+id: "system-architecture-page-url"
+```
+
+Extracted: Current caching architecture uses Redis for API responses, Memcached for session storage.
+
+```
+Notion:notion-fetch
+id: "redis-implementation-guide-url"
+```
+
+Extracted: Implementation details, TTL settings, invalidation strategies.
+
+```
+Notion:notion-fetch
+id: "api-caching-decision-record-url"
+```
+
+Extracted: Why Redis was chosen over alternatives, trade-offs considered.
+
+### Step 3: Synthesize Findings
+
+**Key findings identified:**
+- Two-tier caching: Redis (API responses) + Memcached (sessions)
+- TTL strategy: 5 minutes for dynamic data, 1 hour for static
+- Invalidation: Event-driven for critical updates
+- Performance impact: 75% reduction in database load
+- Known issues: Cache stampede on popular endpoints
+
+### Step 4: Create Technical Summary
+
+```
+Notion:notion-create-pages
+
+parent: { page_id: "engineering-docs-parent-id" }
+
+pages: [{
+  properties: {
+    "title": "Technical Summary: Caching Strategy - Oct 2025"
+  },
+  content: "[Structured technical summary using template]"
+}]
+```
+
+## Output Document
+
+```markdown
+# Technical Summary: Caching Strategy - Oct 2025
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+Our caching infrastructure uses a two-tier approach with Redis for API response caching and Memcached for session management. This strategy has reduced database load by 75% and improved API response times from 200ms to 50ms average.
+
+## Architecture Overview
+
+### Layer 1: API Response Caching (Redis)
+**Technology**: Redis 7.0 cluster (3 nodes)
+**Purpose**: Cache GET endpoint responses
+**TTL Strategy**:
+- Dynamic content: 5 minutes
+- Static content: 1 hour
+- User-specific: 15 minutes
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">System Architecture Overview</mention-page>
+
+### Layer 2: Session Storage (Memcached)
+**Technology**: Memcached 1.6
+**Purpose**: User session data, temporary state
+**TTL**: 24 hours (session lifetime)
+
+## Implementation Details
+
+### Cache Key Format
+```
+api:v1:{endpoint}:{params_hash}
+session:{user_id}:{session_id}
+```
+
+### Invalidation Strategy
+- **Event-driven**: Critical data changes trigger immediate invalidation
+- **Time-based**: TTL expiration for non-critical data
+- **Manual**: Admin tools for emergency cache clear
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">Redis Implementation Guide</mention-page>
+
+## Decision Rationale
+
+### Why Redis for API Caching?
+
+**Pros**:
+- Advanced data structures (sorted sets, hashes)
+- Built-in TTL with automatic eviction
+- Pub/sub for cache invalidation events
+- Persistence options for durability
+
+**Cons**:
+- Higher memory usage than Memcached
+- More complex cluster management
+
+**Decision**: Chosen for flexibility and rich feature set needed for API caching.
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">API Caching Decision Record</mention-page>
+
+### Why Memcached for Sessions?
+
+**Pros**:
+- Simpler, lighter weight
+- Excellent for key-value storage
+- Lower memory footprint
+
+**Cons**:
+- No persistence
+- Limited data structures
+
+**Decision**: Perfect fit for ephemeral session data where simplicity is valued.
+
+## Performance Impact
+
+| Metric | Before Caching | After Caching | Improvement |
+|--------|----------------|---------------|-------------|
+| Avg Response Time | 200ms | 50ms | 75% faster |
+| Database Load | 100% | 25% | 75% reduction |
+| Cache Hit Rate | - | 85% | - |
+| Peak RPS Handled | 1,000 | 4,000 | 4x increase |
+
+**Source**: <mention-page url="...">Performance Optimization - Q3 2024</mention-page>
+
+## Known Issues & Limitations
+
+### Cache Stampede
+**Issue**: When popular cache entries expire, multiple requests hit database simultaneously
+
+**Mitigation**: Implemented probabilistic early expiration and request coalescing
+
+**Status**: Reduced by 90% but not eliminated
+
+### Stale Data Risk
+**Issue**: Cached data can be up to TTL duration stale
+
+**Mitigation**: Event-driven invalidation for critical data paths
+
+**Status**: Acceptable trade-off for performance gains
+
+## Monitoring & Observability
+
+**Metrics tracked**:
+- Cache hit/miss rates per endpoint
+- Memory usage and eviction rates
+- Response time distributions
+- Invalidation event frequency
+
+**Tools**: DataDog dashboards, CloudWatch alarms
+
+## Future Considerations
+
+1. **Edge Caching**: Evaluate CDN integration for static assets
+2. **Cache Warming**: Pre-populate cache for predictable traffic spikes
+3. **Adaptive TTLs**: Adjust TTLs based on data change frequency
+4. **Regional Caching**: Multi-region cache replication for global performance
+
+## Related Documentation
+
+- <mention-page url="...">System Architecture Overview</mention-page>
+- <mention-page url="...">Redis Implementation Guide</mention-page>
+- <mention-page url="...">API Caching Decision Record</mention-page>
+- <mention-page url="...">Performance Optimization - Q3 2024</mention-page>
+
+## Appendix: Configuration Examples
+
+### Redis Configuration
+```yaml
+maxmemory: 8gb
+maxmemory-policy: allkeys-lru
+tcp-keepalive: 60
+```
+
+### Common Cache Operations
+```python
+# Set with TTL
+cache.set(key, value, ttl=300)
+
+# Get with fallback
+value = cache.get(key) or fetch_from_db(key)
+
+# Invalidate pattern
+cache.delete_pattern("api:v1:users:*")
+```
+```
+
+## Key Success Factors
+
+1. **Multiple source integration**: Combined architecture docs, implementation guides, and decision records
+2. **Technical depth**: Included configuration, code examples, metrics
+3. **Decision context**: Explained why choices were made, not just what
+4. **Practical focus**: Real performance numbers and known issues
+5. **Future-looking**: Noted areas for improvement
+6. **Well-cited**: Every major point links back to source material
+
+## Workflow Pattern Demonstrated
+
+This example shows the complete research workflow:
+- **Scoped search** (teamspace filter for engineering)
+- **Multi-page synthesis** (4 different sources)
+- **Technical template** (architecture-focused format)
+- **Proper placement** (under engineering docs)
+- **Comprehensive citations** (links to all sources)
+