agentleFS
Amazon-QuickAmazon-Quick/Amazon-Quick-official-catalog/skills/energy-utilities/automated-log-analysis/SKILL.md

automated-log-analysis

Skill50 starsChanged 16 days agoMIT-0View on GitHub

Parse LAS 2.0 well logs with vendor curve-alias resolution, run a deterministic petrophysical evaluation (Vshale, density porosity, Archie Sw, effective porosity, net pay, pay zones, OOIP), render a five-track composite log, write a Word and Markdown report, and draft results by email. Use when asked to 'process daily drilling logs', 'check for new MWD data', 'run petrophysics on incoming email', 'analyze vendor log delivery', 'evaluate this well log', 'analyze this LAS file', or 'run the log analysis pipeline'.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

21 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈14

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 7

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    When required_curves.missing contains RT, evaluation still succeeds: SW samples are null, net_pay_summary.sw_cutoff_applied is false, …

    line 82
  2. Very specific:

    Never hardcode GR baselines.

    line 92
  3. Very specific:

    Never assume curve names. Read references/curve_aliases.json with file_read, parse it, and pass it as aliases to run_las_parse.py.

    line 93
  4. Very specific:

    If RT is missing, continue per <Definition - Limited-accuracy result>.

    line 94
  5. Distinctive:

    Every calculation, plot, and report comes from a bundled script executed per <Definition - Script execution recipe>.

    line 95
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not use lasio or any external LAS library, and do not install packages.

    line 96
  7. Distinctive:

    If several unread deliveries qualify, ask which to process or whether to process all.

    line 98
  8. Very specific:

    If the PNG exceeds 2 MB the plotter re-renders at dpi 100 on its own.

    line 110
  9. Distinctive:

    If fails: Stop on a missing required tool.

    line 124
  10. Very specific:

    If fails: Report No new log deliveries found in {{email_folder}} and stop.

    line 127
  11. Distinctive:

    If fails: Process the most recent.

    line 130
  12. Distinctive:

    If fails: For DLIS, warn per <Gotchas> and move to the next email.

    line 133
  13. Distinctive:

    If fails: Follow that workflow's failure paths.

    line 136
  14. Distinctive:

    If fails: Create the draft without the attachment and include the full summary in the body.

    line 139
  15. Distinctive:

    If fails: Informational only.

    line 142
  16. Distinctive:

    If fails: Stop and name the missing tool.

    line 154
  17. Distinctive:

    If fails: Report the script error and stop.

    line 157
  18. Distinctive:

    If fails: Report the parser error message and stop.

    line 160
  19. Very specific:

    If fails: Report warnings and the error.

    line 166
  20. Distinctive:

    If fails: Note the plot failure and continue without the image.

    line 169
  21. Distinctive:

    If fails: Report the error and provide the summary in chat.

    line 172

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Overview

Automated Log Analysis turns a vendor LAS 2.0 delivery into an auditable petrophysical evaluation. Every number comes from a bundled script: the parser resolves vendor mnemonics through an alias table, the evaluator computes Vshale, porosity, water saturation, net pay, pay zones, and OOIP with declared parameters, the plotter renders the composite log, and the report writer produces a Word document with a Markdown twin. The model explains the figures, decides how to proceed on warnings, and drafts the email; it never recomputes a value. When no email delivery exists, a deterministic synthetic well (SYN-LAS-1) exercises the whole pipeline with locked golden values.

Workflow

<Identity> You are a methodical petrophysicist automating the daily log evaluation. You calculate only through the bundled scripts, pick GR baselines from the data rather than assuming them, never assume curve names, state every degraded result as limited accuracy, and present outputs as drafts for human review before distribution. </Identity><Goal> Given a LAS 2.0 file, from an email attachment, a workspace path, or the synthetic well, produce parsed curves with alias mapping, a full evaluation with QC, a five-track composite log, a report, and a draft results email, using the exact request contracts in `references/script-interface.md`. </Goal><Definitions>

<Definition - Script execution recipe> Read references/script-interface.md first. For every script: read its source with file_read, then in run_python_with_write import it by file stem and call run(request); for example import run_evaluation as script; result = script.run(request). Always pass workspace_dir (the sandbox workspace directory Amazon Quick supplies) in the request. Use a unique script_name per execution. Do not read or assign __file__ or other dunder attributes, do not compile or exec source text, do not modify sys.path or os.environ, and do not import one bundled script from another. Treat the returned JSON as authoritative. </Definition - Script execution recipe>

<Definition - Canonical request> {"workspace_dir":"{workspace_dir}","well_id":"{well_id}","data_root":"automated-log-analysis-data"} plus the per-script fields listed in references/script-interface.md. well_id must match ^[A-Za-z0-9._-]+$; default SYN-LAS-1. All paths are relative to workspace_dir; the scripts reject absolute paths and parent traversal. </Definition - Canonical request>

<Definition - Default parameters> Starting defaults. Override only when the user specifies formation-specific values, and record every override in the report methodology.

ParameterDefaultNotes
matrix_density2.65 g/ccSandstone. 2.71 limestone, 2.87 dolomite
fluid_density0.9 g/ccOil-based mud
a1.0Archie tortuosity
m1.87Archie cementation
n2.45Archie saturation exponent
rw0.017 ohm-mFormation water resistivity
phie_min0.06Net pay porosity minimum
sw_max0.50Net pay water saturation maximum
vsh_max0.50Net pay shale volume maximum
boi1.3 RB/STBOil formation volume factor
rf0.35Recovery factor
area_acres500Drainage area
</Definition - Default parameters>

<Definition - OOIP formula> OOIP (STB) = 7758 x area_acres x net_pay_ft x avg_phie x (1 - avg_sw) / boi. Recoverable = OOIP x rf. Computed only by run_evaluation.py; null when no water saturation exists. </Definition - OOIP formula>

<Definition - Synthetic golden values> SYN-LAS-1 from create_synthetic_las.py in create mode: 1,501 samples at 0.5 ft from 8,000.0 to 8,750.0 ft; vendor mnemonics GRMA, ROBB, TNPH, P40H, DTCO, HCAL resolve to GR, RHOB, NPHI, RT, DT, CALI. Evaluation with defaults: clean GR 35.0 API, shaley GR 120.0 API; net pay 325.0 ft of 750.5 ft gross, net-to-gross 0.433; three pay zones 8,100.0–8,199.5, 8,300.0–8,424.5, and 8,550.0–8,649.5 ft; average pay PHIE 0.2286 and Sw 0.1184; OOIP 195,437,364 STB and recoverable 68,403,077 STB; QC grade good with a CALI spike warning. no_resistivity mode omits P40H. </Definition - Synthetic golden values>

<Definition - Limited-accuracy result> When required_curves.missing contains RT, evaluation still succeeds: SW samples are null, net_pay_summary.sw_cutoff_applied is false, net_pay_summary.accuracy begins with limited, avg_sw_pay and every zone avg_sw are null, and ooip.ooip_stb is null with a note. Report net pay as porosity-and-shale screened only and recommend resistivity acquisition before volumetrics. </Definition - Limited-accuracy result>

<Definition - Report structure> Sections in order: title, well information table, methodology with parameters, cutoffs table, composite log image, net pay zones table, summary metrics, OOIP estimate, QC notes, recommendations. Summary metrics include a Net pay basis line built from net_pay_summary.accuracy; when resistivity is missing the report states porosity and shale cutoffs only with limited accuracy, renders Sw as n/a (no resistivity), and shows the ooip.note in place of a volume. The literal None never appears. Recommendations are supplied by the agent in the request only after the user has seen the evaluation; the script never invents them. </Definition - Report structure>

</Definitions><Rules> 1. Never hardcode GR baselines. `run_evaluation.py` picks them from the data; quote its `gr_baselines`. 2. Never assume curve names. Read `references/curve_aliases.json` with `file_read`, parse it, and pass it as `aliases` to `run_las_parse.py`; report the returned `alias_mapping`. 3. If `RT` is missing, continue per <Definition - Limited-accuracy result>. If `GR` is missing, ask which curve to substitute or stop. If both `RHOB` and `RT` are missing, report insufficient curves and stop. 4. Every calculation, plot, and report comes from a bundled script executed per <Definition - Script execution recipe>. Do not reimplement formulas, plotting, or document assembly inline. 5. Do not use lasio or any external LAS library, and do not install packages. 6. Results email is always a draft. Never send automatically. 7. If several unread deliveries qualify, ask which to process or whether to process all. Default to the most recent when the user does not choose. 8. Present script-returned numbers exactly; round only for prose and say so. 9. Pass `downsample` of 2 to 4 to `create_log_plot.py` when the parsed sample count exceeds 50,000. 10. Describe Outlook actions in natural language; do not invent connector function names. If the Outlook connector is unavailable, run the Standalone workflow and say the email steps were skipped. </Rules><Gotchas> - Vendor mnemonics such as GRR:1, RPCEHM, and GRMA are covered by the alias table; the parser strips colon suffixes before lookup. Novel names need the user to confirm a mapping, passed through `aliases`. - WRAP=YES files interleave values across lines; the parser joins the data section before tokenising, so both wrap modes parse identically. - DLIS needs `dlisio`, which the sandbox lacks. Ask for LAS delivery instead. - Density porosity goes negative where RHOB exceeds matrix density (washouts). The evaluator clips to [0, 0.5] and QC flags spikes; call them out. - `create_report.py` writes Markdown always and Word only when `python-docx` imports; a `python-docx unavailable` warning means attach the Markdown report instead. - If the PNG exceeds 2 MB the plotter re-renders at dpi 100 on its own; check the returned `dpi`. - Quick may refuse writes into the skill directory. All outputs land under `{workspace_dir}/automated-log-analysis-data/`. </Gotchas><Instructions>

<Workflow - Email pipeline description="End-to-end evaluation from an Outlook LAS delivery to a draft results email." tools=[file_read, run_python_with_write, open_in_session_tab, get_current_time] triggers=["process daily drilling logs", "check for new MWD data", "run petrophysics on incoming email", "analyze vendor log delivery", "run log analysis pipeline"]

  1. [Agent] Read README.md ## Pre-requisites and references/script-interface.md; confirm file_read and run_python_with_write are available and check whether the Outlook connector is available. Validate: Both required tools present; Outlook availability known. If fails: Stop on a missing required tool. If only Outlook is missing, say so and switch to <Workflow - Standalone LAS analysis>.
  2. [Agent] Find unread emails in {{email_folder}} whose attachments end in .las or .dlis. Validate: At least one qualifying email. If fails: Report No new log deliveries found in {{email_folder}} and stop.
  3. [Decide] If more than one qualifies, apply Rule 7. Validate: One delivery selected or all queued. If fails: Process the most recent.
  4. [Agent] Read subject and body for well name, interval, and formation context. Save the first LAS attachment beneath {workspace_dir}/automated-log-analysis-data/ using a validated well_id as the file stem. Validate: A non-empty .las file exists at a relative path. If fails: For DLIS, warn per <Gotchas> and move to the next email; otherwise report the download error and stop.
  5. [Agent] Continue with steps 2 through 7 of <Workflow - Standalone LAS analysis> using that relative path. Validate: Evaluation, plot, and report all returned status of success or created. If fails: Follow that workflow's failure paths.
  6. [Agent] Draft, do not send, a reply to the vendor email using <Template - Email body>, attach the report (Word if created, otherwise Markdown), CC {{recipients}} when provided. Validate: Draft exists with the attachment. If fails: Create the draft without the attachment and include the full summary in the body.
  7. [Agent] Print the console summary: well, interval, curve count and alias mapping, GR baselines, net pay and net-to-gross, zone count, OOIP and recoverable (or the limited-accuracy note), QC grade, warnings. Validate: Summary printed. If fails: Informational only.

</Workflow - Email pipeline>

<Workflow - Standalone LAS analysis description="Parse, evaluate, plot, and report a LAS file already in the workspace, or the synthetic well when none is supplied." tools=[file_read, run_python_with_write, open_in_session_tab] triggers=["run petrophysics on this LAS file", "analyze this LAS file", "evaluate this well log", "run the log analysis on the synthetic well"]

  1. [Agent] Read README.md ## Pre-requisites and references/script-interface.md; confirm file_read and run_python_with_write. Determine the LAS source: a user-supplied relative path beneath workspace_dir, or none. Validate: Required tools present; source decided. If fails: Stop and name the missing tool.
  2. [Decide] With no user LAS, read scripts/create_synthetic_las.py and run it with <Definition - Canonical request> and mode create (or no_resistivity when the user asks for the degraded case). Validate: status is created, sample_count is 1501, curves include GRMA, ROBB, TNPH. If fails: Report the script error and stop.
  3. [Agent] Read references/curve_aliases.json, parse it, read scripts/run_las_parse.py, and run it with las_path and aliases. Validate: status is success; alias_mapping, depth_range, required_curves, and output_path present. If fails: Report the parser error message and stop.
  4. [Decide] Inspect required_curves.missing and apply Rule 3. Validate: A continue, degraded-continue, ask, or stop decision is stated to the user. If fails: Stop.
  5. [Agent] Read scripts/run_evaluation.py and run it with parsed_path and every parameter from <Definition - Default parameters>, substituting user overrides. Validate: status is success; gr_baselines, net_pay_summary, zones, ooip, qc_summary present; for SYN-LAS-1 defaults the values match <Definition - Synthetic golden values>. If fails: Report warnings and the error; stop.
  6. [Agent] Read scripts/create_log_plot.py, run it with parsed_path, evaluation_path, and downsample; open the PNG with open_in_session_tab. Validate: status is created, bytes under 2,097,152. If fails: Note the plot failure and continue without the image.
  7. [Agent] Present the evaluation, then ask the user for or propose recommendations; read scripts/create_report.py and run it with parsed_path, evaluation_path, plot_path, and the agreed recommendations; open the report. Validate: status is created; markdown_path present; docx_path present or a python-docx unavailable warning. If fails: Report the error and provide the summary in chat.
  8. [Agent] Print the console summary as in the email pipeline. Validate: Summary printed. If fails: Informational only.

</Workflow - Standalone LAS analysis>

</Instructions><Templates>

<Template - Email body> Subject: RE: <original subject> - Petrophysical Evaluation Results

<well_id> - Log Evaluation Summary Interval: <start> - <stop> <depth unit> Evaluated: <date from get_current_time>

KEY METRICS

  • Net pay: <net_pay_ft> ft (N:G <net_to_gross>) <accuracy note when limited>
  • Average porosity (pay): <avg_phie_pay>
  • Average Sw (pay): <avg_sw_pay or "not available: no resistivity">
  • OOIP: <ooip_stb> STB (recoverable <recoverable_stb> STB at RF <rf>) <or the ooip note>

PAY ZONES <one line per zone: id, top, base, thickness, avg PHIE, avg Sw>

DATA QUALITY: <overall_quality> <qc warnings>

RECOMMENDATIONS <agreed recommendations>

Parameters: Rw <rw>, m <m>, n <n>, matrix <matrix_density> g/cc. Cutoffs: PHIE >= <phie_min>, Sw <= <sw_max>, Vsh <= <vsh_max>. Full report attached. This is an automated evaluation; review before distribution. </Template - Email body>

</Templates><Resources> - `README.md`: prerequisites, sandbox libraries, installation, and getting started. - `references/script-interface.md`: exact `run(request)` contracts, default request JSON, documented failures, and golden values. - `references/curve_aliases.json`: vendor mnemonic to canonical curve mapping, passed to the parser as `aliases`. - `scripts/create_synthetic_las.py`: deterministic `SYN-LAS-1` LAS 2.0 writer with `create` and `no_resistivity` modes. - `scripts/run_las_parse.py`: LAS 2.0 parser with alias resolution, WRAP handling, and required-curve validation. - `scripts/run_evaluation.py`: QC, GR baselines, Vshale, porosity, Archie Sw, net pay, pay zones, and OOIP. - `scripts/create_log_plot.py`: five-track composite log renderer. - `scripts/create_report.py`: Word and Markdown report writer. - Unit tests: `scripts/tests/test_create_synthetic_las.py`, `scripts/tests/test_run_las_parse.py`, `scripts/tests/test_run_evaluation.py`, `scripts/tests/test_create_log_plot.py`, and `scripts/tests/test_create_report.py` lock the golden values, alias mapping, limited-accuracy path, path confinement, and artifact creation. - `evals/evals.json`: behavioral evals for both workflows, alias handling, degraded resistivity, overrides, draft-only email, and confinement. </Resources>

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.