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
- krixon/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- krixon/skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adversarial-feature-challengeSkill
- api-contract-versioningSkill
- bug-ticket-root-causeSkill
- bug-triage-structuredSkill
- ci-pipeline-orchestrationSkill
- commit-readiness-reviewSkill
- comprehensive-test-strategySkill
- database-schema-evolutionSkill
- ddd-backend-implementationSkill
- design-system-component-lifecycleSkill
- detection-sweepSkill
- domain-glossarySkill
- domain-modeling-designSkill
- frontend-fullstack-implementationSkill
- frontend-spec-call-site-auditSkill
- merge-request-reviewSkill
- performance-profilingSkill
- recording-decisionsSkill
- recurring-bug-root-causeSkill
- refactoring-shared-component-apiSkill
- validating-features-end-to-endSkill
- visual-regression-checkSkill
- writing-robust-testsSkill
- adversarial-feature-challengeSkill
- api-contract-versioningSkill
- audit-architectureSkill
- audit-ci-cdSkill
- audit-complianceSkill
- audit-industrialisationSkill
- audit-performance-frontendSkill
- audit-qualitySkill
- audit-reportSkill
- audit-securitySkill
- audit-testingSkill
- bug-ticket-root-causeSkill
- bug-triage-structuredSkill
- ci-pipeline-orchestrationSkill
- commit-readiness-reviewSkill
- comprehensive-test-strategySkill
- daily-workflow-optimizationSkill
- database-schema-evolutionSkill
- ddd-backend-implementationSkill
- design-system-component-lifecycleSkill
- detection-sweepSkill
- domain-glossarySkill
- domain-modeling-designSkill
- frontend-fullstack-implementationSkill
- frontend-spec-call-site-auditSkill
- merge-request-reviewSkill
- performance-profilingSkill
- production-incident-diagnosticSkill
- qa-session-intakeSkill
- recording-decisionsSkill
- recurring-bug-root-causeSkill
- refactoring-shared-component-apiSkill
- validating-features-end-to-endSkill
- visual-regression-checkSkill
- writing-robust-testsSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 12
ME when: audit targeted at this domain only
- Distinctive: line 13
audit-industrialisation: instead if: global multi-domain audit - it orchestrates every audit (including ME) and produces a consolidated …
- Distinctive: line 36
Detect the observability stack: look for OpenTelemetry, Prometheus, Grafana, ELK, Datadog, Sentry configs
≈ “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.
Files
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-industrialisationrather 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
- Detect the project type: backend, frontend SPA/PWA, fullstack, library. Use the client-side variant if applicable.
- Detect the observability stack: look for OpenTelemetry, Prometheus, Grafana, ELK, Datadog, Sentry configs
- Analyze the logging configuration: framework, format, levels, correlation, guidelines
- Check contextual baggage: context propagation, automatic enrichment
- Check instrumentation: RED/USE metrics exposed, tracing configured
- Look for dashboards: Grafana configs, links in the docs, hierarchical structure
- Analyze latency tracking: baseline, drift detection, predictive alerts
- Check pools: configurations, metrics, saturation alerts
- Examine transient-error detection: classification, baseline, anomalies
- Examine the alert catalog: classification, owner, runbook, severity
- Check notifications: channels, routing, escalation, failover
- Analyze correlation/deduplication: grouping, inhibition, noise ratio
- Check runbooks: content, links, diagnostic scripts
- Analyze threshold tuning: regular review, metrics, adaptive thresholds
- Examine post-mortems: template, culture, action tracking, recurrence
- Check dependencies: observability packages installed
- Run the verification commands for each question (see per-section grids)
- Assign a level per question with justification and confidence level
- Mark N/A the questions not applicable to the project type
- 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 type | Variant to use | Often-N/A questions |
| Backend / API | Standard grid (server) | - |
| Frontend SPA/PWA | Client-side grid for all questions | ob-03, ob-08 may stay N/A |
| Fullstack (monorepo) | Standard for the backend, client-side for the frontend. Two scores possible. | - |
| Library / SDK | ob-01 (logs) and ob-02 (guidelines) relevant, the rest often N/A | ob-04 to ob-09, al-01 to al-06 often N/A |
| CLI / Script | Simplified standard | ob-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 testsExit 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
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
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.

