terraform-expert
Skill0 starsChanged 38 days agoMITView on GitHub
Writes safe, modular, idiomatic Terraform - remote state layout, module structure, plan-review discipline, version pinning, and blast-radius control. Use when someone asks "structure my Terraform repo", "how should I split state between environments", "terraform plan wants to destroy and recreate my database", "should I use count or for_each", or "how do I import existing infrastructure". Do NOT use for CI pipeline authoring in GitHub Actions - use github-actions instead; for Kubernetes manifests the infrastructure hosts, use kubernetes-basics; for managing app secrets outside IaC, use secrets-hygiene.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- boreal1/agentstheir own version, first seen Apr 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- boreal1/agents★ 0same 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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- docker-compose-wizardSkill
- github-actionsSkill
- kubernetes-basicsSkill
- observability-stackSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
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
- Very specific: line 28
Never edit state by hand. Refactors use terraform state mv.
- Very specific: line 82
Every apply is preceded by a terraform plan reviewed by a human - in a PR for teams.
- Distinctive: line 123
Do not keep shared state locally or share one state file across environments - the failure is corruption or cross-env damage, and both are …
- Distinctive: line 124
Do not apply without a reviewed plan.
- Very specific: line 125
Do not use count for collections with identity - removals renumber and recreate everything after them.
- Very specific: line 126
Do not hand-edit state; use state mv and import.
- Distinctive: line 127
Do not leave providers unpinned or the lockfile uncommitted.
- Distinctive: line 128
Do not put raw resources in environment roots - that is how prod and staging quietly diverge.
- Very specific: line 133
No environment root contains a resource block.
- Very specific: line 134
Every irreplaceable resource carries prevent_destroy.
- Very specific: line 136
All providers pinned with ~>, lockfile committed.
≈ “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
Terraform Expert
The costly failure mode in Terraform is not syntax - it is an unreviewed apply that destroys a production database because a rename read as destroy-and-recreate, or two engineers corrupting shared state because it lived on a laptop. This skill structures Terraform so every change is a reviewed plan with a known blast radius, and state is a locked, encrypted, per-environment artifact.
Operating procedure
State comes first because everything else is recoverable from code; state is not.
Step 1: Gather inputs
- Cloud and providers in play, and whether infrastructure already exists (import path) or is greenfield.
- Environments - dev/staging/prod at minimum? Any per-region splits?
- Team size and apply model - local applies, CI-driven, or Terraform Cloud? Default for more than one engineer: CI-driven with plan output posted to the PR.
- Criticality tiers - which resources are irreplaceable (databases, DNS zones, KMS keys)? These get
prevent_destroy.
Step 2: Set up state before writing resources
- Remote backend always - S3 + DynamoDB locking, GCS, or Terraform Cloud. Local state for shared infrastructure guarantees eventual corruption or loss.
- One state file per environment. Never share state across environments: a bad apply in dev must be physically unable to touch prod.
- State stores secrets and all attribute values in plaintext - encrypt the backend at rest and restrict read access as tightly as the secrets it holds.
- Never edit state by hand. Refactors use
terraform state mv; adopting existing infrastructure usesimport(or import blocks). A hand-edited state file diverges from reality silently.
Step 3: Lay out the repository
modules/ # reusable building blocks, no env-specific values
vpc/
main.tf # resources
variables.tf # typed inputs with validation
outputs.tf # what consumers may depend on
ecs-service/
...
environments/ # thin per-env roots - wiring only
dev/
main.tf # module calls + env values
backend.tf # this env's state config
terraform.tfvars
staging/
prod/Rules the skeleton encodes:
- Environments are thin: they call modules and pass variables. If an environment root contains a raw
resourceblock, that resource belongs in a module. - A module hardcodes zero environment values; everything env-specific arrives via
variables.tf. - Modules expose only deliberate
outputs.tf- consumers depending on undeclared internals break on refactor.
Step 4: Write idiomatic resources
variable "instance_count" {
type = number
default = 2
validation {
condition = var.instance_count > 0
error_message = "instance_count must be positive."
}
}
resource "aws_instance" "app" {
for_each = var.instances # stable keys, not count indexes
instance_type = each.value.type
tags = merge(local.common_tags, { Name = "app-${each.key}" })
}for_eachovercountwhenever items have stable identities. Withcount, deleting item 0 renumbers every following item and Terraform destroys and recreates all of them.- Tag everything through one
common_tagslocal - untagged resources are unattributable in the bill and invisible to cleanup. - Mark sensitive outputs
sensitive = true. - Secrets come from a secrets manager via data sources; never hardcode them (they land in state and git either way, but hardcoding puts them in both).
Step 5: Pin versions and enforce plan review
- Pin providers and modules with
~>constraints and commit.terraform.lock.hcl. An unpinned provider means every teammate and CI run can resolve different code. - Every apply is preceded by a
terraform planreviewed by a human - in a PR for teams. The review question is always: does the plan contain anydestroyorreplaceyou did not intend? lifecycle { prevent_destroy = true }on every Step 1 irreplaceable resource. It turns a catastrophic apply into an explicit error.
Step 6: Operate - upgrades, drift, blast radius
- Provider upgrades: one minor version at a time, read the upgrade guide, plan in dev first. A plan full of forced replacements after a bump means stop and read, not apply.
- Drift: run plan on a schedule (daily in CI is a reasonable default); reconcile manual console changes back into code or revert them. Unreconciled drift compounds until plans become unreadable.
- Blast radius: when a single state's plan routinely exceeds a few hundred resources or takes many minutes, split it into independently-applied stacks (networking / data / compute) connected by remote state outputs or data sources. Smaller states mean smaller worst-case applies.
Worked contrast
Bad - environment root that will drift from staging within a month:
# environments/prod/main.tf
resource "aws_instance" "app" { # raw resource in an env root
count = 3 # count: delete one, recreate the rest
ami = "ami-0abc123" # hardcoded, differs from staging by accident
instance_type = "m5.large"
}Good - the same intent through the module contract:
# environments/prod/main.tf
module "app" {
source = "../../modules/app-service"
instances = { a = { type = "m5.large" }, b = { type = "m5.large" }, c = { type = "m5.large" } }
env = "prod"
}Prod and staging now differ only in the values they pass, and the diff between them is reviewable in one screen.
Deliverable
Produce a Terraform setup containing: the remote backend configuration with locking and encryption per environment; the modules/ + environments/ skeleton above populated for the actual stack; pinned provider constraints and a committed lockfile; prevent_destroy on every named irreplaceable resource; and a documented plan-review workflow (who reviews, where plan output lands).
Do NOT
- Do not keep shared state locally or share one state file across environments - the failure is corruption or cross-env damage, and both are unrecoverable by git.
- Do not apply without a reviewed plan; the plan is the only thing standing between a rename and a destroyed database.
- Do not use
countfor collections with identity - removals renumber and recreate everything after them. - Do not hand-edit state; use
state mvandimport. - Do not leave providers unpinned or the lockfile uncommitted.
- Do not put raw resources in environment roots - that is how prod and staging quietly diverge.
Quality bar
terraform validateand a clean review ofplanpass in every environment.- No environment root contains a
resourceblock; no module contains an environment-specific literal. - Every irreplaceable resource carries
prevent_destroy; a test plan proves a rename does not schedule a replace on them. - Backend is remote, locked, encrypted; states are one-per-env.
- All providers pinned with
~>, lockfile committed.
Escalation
Route CI pipeline mechanics (plan-on-PR, apply-on-merge jobs) to github-actions, workload manifests to kubernetes-basics, and secret storage policy to secrets-hygiene. For compliance-audited infrastructure (SOC 2 change-management evidence), pair with soc2-evidence-helper.
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.

