Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Optimize Evernote integration performance. Use when improving response times, reducing API calls, or scaling Evernote integrations. Trigger with phrases like "evernote performance", "optimize evernote", "evernote speed", "evernote caching".
.claude/skills/jeremylongshore-evernote-performance-tuning/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 45% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 21% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 33% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 37% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 43% | 0% |
Optimize Evernote API integration performance through response caching, efficient data retrieval, request batching, connection management, and performance monitoring.
Cache frequently accessed data (notebook lists, tag lists, note metadata) with TTL-based expiration. Notebook and tag lists change rarely -- cache for 5-15 minutes. Note metadata can be cached for 1-5 minutes.
javascriptclass EvernoteCache { constructor(redis) { this.redis = redis; } async getOrFetch(key, fetcher, ttlSeconds = 300) { const cached = await this.redis.get(key); if (cached) return JSON.parse(cached); const data = await fetcher(); await this.redis.setex(key, ttlSeconds, JSON.stringify(data)); return data; } async listNotebooks(noteStore) { return this.getOrFetch('notebooks', () => noteStore.listNotebooks(), 600); } async listTags(noteStore) { return this.getOrFetch('tags', () => noteStore.listTags(), 600); } }
Use findNotesMetadata() instead of findNotes() to avoid transferring full note content. Only request needed fields in NotesMetadataResultSpec. Fetch full content only when the user explicitly opens a note.
javascript// BAD: Fetches full content for all notes const notes = await noteStore.findNotes(filter, 0, 100); // GOOD: Fetches only metadata (title, dates, tags) const metadata = await noteStore.findNotesMetadata(filter, 0, 100, spec); // Fetch content only for the specific note user opens const fullNote = await noteStore.getNote(guid, true, false, false, false);
Batch multiple operations using sync chunks instead of individual API calls. Use getSyncChunk() to fetch up to 100 changed notes in a single call instead of 100 getNote() calls.
Reuse the Evernote client instance across requests. The NoteStore maintains an HTTP connection that benefits from keep-alive. Create one client per user session, not per request.
Track API call counts, response times (p50, p95, p99), cache hit rates, and rate limit occurrences. Alert on degradation.
For the complete caching layer, batching strategies, monitoring setup, and benchmark examples, see Implementation Guide.
| Error | Cause | Solution | |-------|-------|----------| | RATE_LIMIT_REACHED | Too many API calls | Increase cache TTL, batch operations | | Stale cache data | Cache not invalidated on update | Invalidate cache on webhook notification | | Redis connection failure | Cache infrastructure down | Fall through to direct API call | | Slow responses | Large note content in response | Use findNotesMetadata() for listings |
For cost optimization, see evernote-cost-tuning.
Cache notebook lookups: Cache listNotebooks() for 10 minutes. On 100 requests/minute, this reduces API calls from 100 to 1 per 10-minute window (99% reduction).
Lazy content loading: Show note titles from cached metadata. Fetch full ENML content only when user clicks to read. Reduces average response time from 500ms to 50ms for list views.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 20,168 | 27,477 | +36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,455 | 4,563 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 21,349 | 21,696 | +2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,553 | 5,143 | +45% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 23,084 | 31,253 | +35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,545 | 5,916 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 18,066 | 11,777 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,498 | 3,030 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 11,424 | 8,317 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,774 | 2,178 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 17,436 | 13,299 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,570 | 3,410 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 16,200 | 12,384 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,041 | 2,799 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 14,324 | 16,134 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,419 | 3,450 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 20,108 | 18,574 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,824 | 3,762 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 16,460 | 12,094 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,731 | 2,707 | -1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 11,255 | 5,274 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,682 | 1,831 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 14,422 | 9,265 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,948 | 2,571 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 12,562 | 8,055 | -36% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,901 | 2,544 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | 9,914 | 8,262 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,694 | 2,244 | +32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 12,285 | 8,339 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,848 | 2,389 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 18,749 | 20,803 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,045 | 4,264 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 12,386 | 3,526 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,794 | 1,614 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 12,952 | 8,127 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,199 | 2,158 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 11,569 | 10,240 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,992 | 2,547 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 12,224 | 7,086 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,880 | 2,104 | +12% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 19,339 | 20,823 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,550 | 4,184 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 15,624 | 15,796 | +1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,741 | 3,366 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→pass | 21,219 | 20,199 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,815 | 3,245 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +35 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.