agentleFS
ChariereFiedlerChariereFiedler/ronce-racine/skills/audit-observability/SKILL.md

audit-observability

Skill9 starsChanged 23 days agoMITView on GitHub

Observability & Alerting audit. Use when auditing logging, metrics, tracing, dashboards, or alerting. Triggers on "audit observabilité", "audit observability", "observability audit", "audit logs", "audit monitoring", "audit alertes", "audit alerting".

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    ME when: audit targeted at this domain only

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    audit-industrialisation: instead if: global multi-domain audit - it orchestrates every audit (including ME) and produces a consolidated …

    line 13
  3. Distinctive:

    Detect the observability stack: look for OpenTelemetry, Prometheus, Grafana, ELK, Datadog, Sentry configs

    line 36

≈ “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

When ME and not audit-industrialisation

  • ME when: audit targeted at this domain only
  • audit-industrialisation instead if: global multi-domain audit - it orchestrates every audit (including ME) and produces a consolidated report

For a full project audit, use audit-industrialisation rather than invoking each skill separately.


Observability & Alerting Audit

Overview

Audit a project's observability maturity: structured logs, logging guidelines, contextual baggage, metrics, dashboards, distributed traces, latency tracking, pool saturation, transient-error detection, alerting, notifications, correlation, runbooks, threshold tuning and post-mortems. Covers the OB (Observability, 9 questions) and AL (Alerting, 6 questions) sections, i.e. 15 questions across 4 thematic grids. Produces a maturity score (0-4) per question.

Score calculation

  • Each scored question receives a level from 0 to 4.
  • Questions marked N/A are excluded from the calculation.
  • Overall score = sum of levels / number of scored questions (excluding N/A).
  • Formula: score = Σ(levels) / count(scored questions)
  • Example: 10 scored questions out of 15, sum = 25 → score = 25/10 = 2.5/4

Audit protocol

  1. Detect the project type: backend, frontend SPA/PWA, fullstack, library. Use the client-side variant if applicable.
  2. Detect the observability stack: look for OpenTelemetry, Prometheus, Grafana, ELK, Datadog, Sentry configs
  3. Analyze the logging configuration: framework, format, levels, correlation, guidelines
  4. Check contextual baggage: context propagation, automatic enrichment
  5. Check instrumentation: RED/USE metrics exposed, tracing configured
  6. Look for dashboards: Grafana configs, links in the docs, hierarchical structure
  7. Analyze latency tracking: baseline, drift detection, predictive alerts
  8. Check pools: configurations, metrics, saturation alerts
  9. Examine transient-error detection: classification, baseline, anomalies
  10. Examine the alert catalog: classification, owner, runbook, severity
  11. Check notifications: channels, routing, escalation, failover
  12. Analyze correlation/deduplication: grouping, inhibition, noise ratio
  13. Check runbooks: content, links, diagnostic scripts
  14. Analyze threshold tuning: regular review, metrics, adaptive thresholds
  15. Examine post-mortems: template, culture, action tracking, recurrence
  16. Check dependencies: observability packages installed
  17. Run the verification commands for each question (see per-section grids)
  18. Assign a level per question with justification and confidence level
  19. Mark N/A the questions not applicable to the project type
  20. Produce the report

Per-section grids

Each grid contains the statement, criticality, the elements to analyze/check, the bash commands and the level tables 0-4 (with a client-side variant where relevant).

  • reference/logging.md - Logs, guidelines, contextual baggage · 3 questions (ob-01 to ob-03)
  • reference/metriques.md - RED/USE, latency, pool saturation, transient errors · 4 questions (ob-04, ob-07, ob-08, ob-09)
  • reference/traces-dashboards.md - Real-time dashboards, distributed traces · 2 questions (ob-05, ob-06)
  • reference/alerting.md - Catalog, notifications, correlation, runbooks, thresholds, post-mortems · 6 questions (al-01 to al-06)

Variants by project type

Project typeVariant to useOften-N/A questions
Backend / APIStandard grid (server)-
Frontend SPA/PWAClient-side grid for all questionsob-03, ob-08 may stay N/A
Fullstack (monorepo)Standard for the backend, client-side for the frontend. Two scores possible.-
Library / SDKob-01 (logs) and ob-02 (guidelines) relevant, the rest often N/Aob-04 to ob-09, al-01 to al-06 often N/A
CLI / ScriptSimplified standardob-03, ob-05, ob-06, ob-08, al-02 to al-06 often N/A

Output format

## Observability & Alerting - Overall score: X.X/4 (Y questions scored out of 15)

### Summary
[2-3 sentences summarizing observability maturity]
[Detected project type: backend / frontend SPA/PWA / fullstack / library]

### Detail per question

| Code | Question | Criticality | Level | Confidence | Justification |
|------|----------|-----------|--------|-----------|---------------|
| ob-01 | Correlated structured logs | MUST | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-02 | Logging guideline and message structure | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-03 | Analysis and implementation of useful baggage | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-04 | RED/USE metrics | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-05 | Real-time dashboards | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-06 | Distributed traces (OTel, Elastic APM) | COULD | X or N/A | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-07 | Latency drift tracking | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-08 | Pool saturation (thread, DB, API) | COULD | X or N/A | high/medium/low | ... |
| ob-09 | Abnormal transient-error detection | SHOULD | X or N/A | high/medium/low | ... |
| al-01 | Alert catalog (critical, warning, info) | MUST | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| al-02 | Multi-channel notifications | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| al-03 | Correlation/deduplication (alert fatigue) | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| al-04 | Investigation runbook | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| al-05 | Alert threshold tuning | SHOULD | X | high/medium/low | ... |
| al-06 | Post-mortem template + recurring incidents | SHOULD | X or N/A | high/medium/low | ... |

### Strengths
- ...

### Weaknesses
- ...

### Recommendations
1. [MUST] ...
2. [SHOULD] ...
3. [COULD] ...

### Non-auditable items
- [List of items impossible to verify through static code analysis]
- Examples: SaaS-side Sentry configuration, alerting rules in PagerDuty, hosted Grafana dashboards, SLOs defined outside the repo, post-mortem process, notification tests

Exit condition

The audit is complete when:

  • Project type detected (backend / frontend / fullstack / library / CLI), variant chosen
  • All 15 questions have received a level 0-4 or been marked N/A with justification
  • Verification commands run for each scored question
  • Confidence level (high/medium/low) assigned per question
  • Overall score computed excluding N/A
  • Strengths, weaknesses and prioritized recommendations (MUST/SHOULD/COULD) filled in
  • Non-auditable items listed explicitly

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.