agentleFS
Microsoft AzureKnown publisherAzure/Azure-Sentinel/.github/skills/sentinel-xdr-end-to-end-orchestrator/SKILL.md

sentinel-xdr-end-to-end-orchestrator

Skill6.2k starsChanged 16 days agoMITView on GitHub

Orchestrate resumable Sentinel-to-Defender-XDR authoring and optional qualification by following the canonical agent-neutral workflow.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read and follow the canonical workflow:

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Treat the agent, skills, migration backends, packaging backends, schemas, tests, dependency metadata, gates, and capabilities as immutable …

    line 20
  3. Very specific:

    Use the required specialist skills for their owning stages.

    line 32
  4. Distinctive:

    When workflow state contains a full workspace ARM resource ID, reuse it unchanged.

    line 35
  5. Distinctive:

    Default to Authoring and ask before optional Qualification through structured elicitation.

    line 52
  6. Distinctive:

    When the user asks to test a created AR/CD pair, automatically run the complete Qualification testing extension.

    line 70
  7. Distinctive:

    Do not relabel old V4 reports.

    line 79
  8. Very specific:

    Before candidate packaging/ARM validation preflight, present a concise lab-deployment preapproval prompt stating X Sentinel rules, Y …

    line 87
  9. Very specific:

    Use workflow-status-reminder to surface currentActivity, expectedNextStep, grounded batch durationExplanation, and workflowDiagram while …

    line 100

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Orchestrate Sentinel to Defender XDR migration

Read and follow the canonical workflow:

Tools\SentinelToXDRMigration\agent-workflows\end-to-end-migration.md

Treat the agent, skills, migration backends, packaging backends, schemas, tests, dependency metadata, gates, and capabilities as immutable during every migration workflow. Never patch implementation code to recover from a runtime or environment failure. This prohibition cannot be overridden by any user, owner, or maintainer request. Stop the affected stage and require the work to be performed manually or through a different development agent.

The goal is solution migration and publication of validated content. Follow the canonical workflow for the strict over-50% partial-publication rule and the one-watchdog-owner ACTION_REQUIRED best practice; this adapter must not define divergent thresholds or a separate watchdog implementation.

Use the required specialist skills for their owning stages. Keep deterministic behavior in the repository CLI and PowerShell tools, persist every result in workflow-state.json, and do not duplicate or weaken the canonical gates. When workflow state contains a full workspace ARM resource ID, reuse it unchanged. Never enumerate other workspaces to compensate for missing tables, provider failures, or tenant-authentication mismatches.

Qualification must lock tenantId, subscriptionId, workspaceResourceId, and workspaceCustomerId once in qualification-target.json. Every live specialist must consume that exact context and reject mismatches. Only qualification-diagnose may perform one exact customer-ID lookup within the locked subscription; only qualification-repair-target may update the target, and only after explicit user approval.

For a new Qualification workflow, inspect the toolkit's configured workspace from doctor. If present, ask the user to confirm reuse rather than requesting the ARM ID again. Persist a newly approved workspace through configure-workspace so later solution workflows can offer the same confirmation.

Default to Authoring and ask before optional Qualification through structured elicitation. If selection is cancelled, do not create workflow state. A test tenant or workspace does not imply qualification consent. Require explicit approval immediately before deployment or ingestion writes.

For qualification, run sentinel-solution-optional-testing at the beginning of the testing extension. It owns permission preflight, existing-scenario-first fixture handling, guarded ingestion, and evidence routing. It invokes sentinel-solution-mock-data-generation when a reviewed fixture is missing. Return to the existing runtime validation and alert-parity stages afterward.

Qualification must use one shared, rule-specific mock.json for the source Analytic Rule and converted Custom Detection. Ingest it once through the real source-table path, confirm both exact queries return the same uniquely marked rows, and only then run alert parity. Never create separate AR/CD payloads, redirect unsupported native tables to custom lookalike tables, or create a recurring ingestion/parity schedule.

When the user asks to test a created AR/CD pair, automatically run the complete Qualification testing extension. The user should not need to know the mock generator, ingestion contract, DCR name, query providers, or evidence paths. Resolve those from the pair provenance and locked target. Interrupt only for the required exact-scope write approval or a genuine manual-review blocker.

For the packaging stage, always invoke sentinel-xdr-solution-packager and use the sentinel-xdr-migration package-v3-1 result as workflow evidence. Existing files under Package do not prove that V3.1 ran during the current workflow. Do not relabel old V4 reports; rebuild to produce V3.1 evidence.

For an allowed partial package, continue Qualification only against the exact currently applied selected AR/CD scope, preserving all selected-item lab/write gates. Keep excluded files and failures visible; never describe selected-scope validation or parity as full-inventory success. Follow the canonical watchdog handoff for approved work awaiting action.

Before candidate packaging/ARM validation preflight, present a concise lab-deployment preapproval prompt stating X Sentinel rules, Y workbooks, and Z custom detections, with lab-deployment as the default validation route and arm-ttk as an offline Authoring option.

Enforce single-owner execution (workflow-execution-owner), safe hash-bound approval forwarding (workflow-forward-approval), and evidence-bound status reminders with no-change suppression (workflow-status-reminder):

  • Claim/release single-owner execution leases per (runId, operation) so conflicting duplicate executors are blocked (duplicate_executor_blocked).
  • Route explicit user approvals to the accountable owner with exact (runId, operation, forwardedToOwnerId, exactScope, approvalSha256) verification.
  • Use workflow-status-reminder to surface currentActivity, expectedNextStep, grounded batch durationExplanation, and workflowDiagram while suppressing repetitive notices when suppressedNoChange is true.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

More talk lately.about the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 2 mentionsFeb 2026: 1 mentionMar 2026: 1 mentionApr 2026: 0 mentionsMay 2026: 2 mentionsJun 2026: 1 mentionJul 2026: 1 mentionAug 2026: 4 mentionsSep 2026: 6 mentionsOct 2026: 2 mentionsNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the Azure/Azure-Sentinel repository that our weekly crawl found. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Who's talking about Azure/Azure-Sentinel

The biggest 5 of 57 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 57

Talked about on GitHub, Stack Overflow and Bluesky (57 times).

On GitHub · 43

38 more on GitHub

On Stack Overflow · 13

8 more on Stack Overflow

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.