EN中
Explore / SQL Analyst Skill
SkillInfo checkedhigh risk

SQL Analyst Skill

Explain SQL schemas, draft queries, and mark destructive operations for review.

Directory
Preview · 94

Preview: the curated catalog plus the latest auto-checked entries. 47 newly auto-checked

44/100
Recommended
Indicative — limited evidence
50/100
Benchmark
Indicative — limited evidence
Needs human reviewInfo checked · Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
Why
Recommendation 44/100, fits Data, setup is easy.
Best for
Developers using Codex for data workflows.
Not for
Production write access without sandboxing or human approval.
Boundary
Checked up to "Info checked"; deeper install and interface testing isn't covered yet — confirm in your own environment.
Remaining risk
High-risk permissions require explicit user approval and sandboxing.
Next step
Review tokens, write access, and network scope in a sandbox before team adoption.
Check before you adopt
This capability uses higher-risk permissions (tokens, write access, shell, and the like). Try it in an isolated environment and confirm what it actually does before using it for real work.

What it is good for

Explain SQL schemas, draft queries, and mark destructive operations for review. AgentMaps treats this as a skill candidate and scores it with a capped benchmark score plus a separate recommendation score that includes trust, platform fit, setup preference, and risk preference.

Use cases

  • - Query structured data
  • - Transform records
  • - Generate summaries
  • - Review code changes
  • - Inspect repository context

Best for

  • - Developers using Codex for data workflows.
  • - Teams that want visible setup, verification, and risk evidence before adoption.

Not for

  • - Production write access without sandboxing or human approval.
  • - Users who cannot provide the required credentials.

Limitations

  • - Scenario-level L5-L7 benchmark testing is not part of the current MVP record.
How it runsCopilot capability

How to use it & what to watch

AI may help filter, explain, and draft a trial plan, but must not perform write, shell, external side effects, or production publishing before review.

What you'll see

  • Start from your task and the platform you use
  • Review its setup, source, and permission scope
  • Try it first in an isolated or low-permission environment
  • For high-risk actions, wait for a review before continuing

Where you can step in

  • Adjust task/platform filters
  • Add to compare
  • Open the source to check
  • Stop a high-risk adoption
  • Add what you've learned

Actions needing approval

  • Approval before writes or state mutation
  • Login-required path not fully tested

If something goes wrong

  • Auth path needs manual reproduction or a constrained test account.
  • When evidence is thin, compare alternatives before any automated adoption.

How to judge a trial

  • Can you find a task-fit candidate within two minutes
  • Can it explain why it's recommended and where it doesn't fit
  • Can you see the token, write, shell, network, or local-file risks
  • Can you tell 'checked the docs' apart from 'actually verified in a run'
  • If a trial fails, is there a fallback or a way to take over manually

Verification evidence

Below is the result of each check — passed, partial, skipped, or not yet tested. It shows how far checking has gone, not that the capability is cleared for production use.

Info checked

Source, docs, license, or package metadata exists.

passed
Risk reviewed

Static review assigns permission and risk boundaries.

skipped
Install-verified

Install path can be checked, but not necessarily in your environment.

skipped
Interface-verified

Interface or entrypoint parsed; not a production safety approval.

skipped
  • Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • Source and documentation fields are present.
  • Static audit pending.
  • Install verification pending.
  • Interface parsing pending.
  • Benchmark score capped at 50 by L1 verification.

Evaluation summary

Quick estimate
Needs reviewStatic reviewMisfire risk: Medium

Risk findings

  • - Database Access
  • - Write Permission

Verified evidence

  • - Seed profile normalized into AgentMaps schema.
  • - Source and documentation fields are present.
  • - Static audit pending.
  • - Install verification pending.

Score breakdown

Safety & permissions47
How well it works58
Actively maintained76
Setup & integration79
Interface quality67
Follows standards64
Task fit74
Works across platforms75

Why it scores well

  • - Clear task fit for the selected scenario.
  • - Ready for metadata review.
  • - Focused platform fit.

Watch outs

  • - Requires credentials before full testing.
  • - High-risk permissions need sandboxing.

Alternatives

GitHub MCP Server
MCP Server · Coding, Automation
66/100
Rec

Connect agents to GitHub repositories, issues, pull requests, and code search.

Interface-verifiedhigh riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Compare SQL Analyst Skill vs GitHub MCP Server
Context7 MCP
MCP Server · Coding, Research
87/100
Rec

Fetch current library documentation and examples directly into coding agents.

Interface-verifiedlow riskCursor
View details →
Compare SQL Analyst Skill vs Context7 MCP
Supabase MCP
MCP Server · Data, Coding +1
62/100
Rec

Give agents controlled access to Supabase projects, schemas, SQL, and project metadata.

Install-verifiedhigh riskSelf-hosted
View details →
Compare SQL Analyst Skill vs Supabase MCP