reliability
Skill19 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use for production incidents, outages, and service degradations, plus release-readiness gate checks. Trigger on 500 spikes, SLA breaches, latency/error surges, on-call alerts, rollback decisions, and RCA/post-mortem requests. Prioritize stabilization, timeline reconstruction, and evidence-led actions.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- alo-exp/silver-bullettheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- soreavis/ai-docenttheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- LucSena/how-to-build-softwaretheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- ai-analyst-lab/ai-analysttheir own version, first seen Sep 10, 2026
- phatnguyen03022001/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 24, 2026
- poorvith-mp/skills-developertheir own version, first seen Aug 19, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- ai-analyst-lab/ai-analyst★ 304same name
- alo-exp/silver-bullet★ 7same name
- ffsshhttiikk/opencode-agents-skills★ 2same name
- phatnguyen03022001/agent-skills★ 2same name
- LucSena/how-to-build-software★ 0same name
- poorvith-mp/skills-developer★ 0same name
- soreavis/ai-docent★ 0same name
- wukai8289/reliability★ 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 repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- debuggingSkill
- nexusSkill
- observabilitySkill
- performanceSkill
- shortsSkill
- skill-writerSkill
- software-engineerSkill
- testingSkill
- token-optimizerSkill
- tutorialSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
10
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 36
If you cannot classify immediately, default to P1 and downgrade after Phase 1.
- Distinctive: line 54
Apply mitigations before investigating: Stop at first "yes":
- Very specific: line 65
After mitigation, post: [Update] Mitigation: <what>.
- Very specific: line 73
Start here. Every other step depends on this.
- Distinctive: line 77
Check in priority order:
- Distinctive: line 127
Every investigation must produce this report:
- Distinctive: line 159
Ask before taking any of these actions — once per action:
- Distinctive: line 176
Never investigate before stabilizing — apply available mitigations first.
- Distinctive: line 177
Never skip building the timeline — investigations without timelines produce wrong root causes.
- Distinctive: line 178
Never declare root cause before it explains all symptoms and the resolution.
- Distinctive: line 179
Never skip the post-mortem for "minor" incidents — they carry the most preventable learnings.
- Distinctive: line 180
Never roll back without confirming the rollback actually fixed the issue (verify metrics drop).
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Nexus Production Incident Investigator
Time-boxed, evidence-driven workflow for investigating production incidents and evaluating release readiness.
Compatibility
- Sub-skills:
release-readiness.md| Materials:checklists/incident-checklist.md,anti-patterns/common-mistakes.md,validation/output-validation.md - Required: Read, Bash, Grep | Optional: WebSearch | Hands off to:
nexus:debugging(code RCA), theroadmap-planneragent (post-mortem actions)
Core Principle
Stabilize first. Investigate second. Never skip the timeline.
Incident Classification
| Severity | Definition | Response target |
| P0 | Complete outage or data loss affecting all/most users | Immediate; page all on-call |
| P1 | Major feature broken or >25% requests failing | < 5 min acknowledgement; page on-call lead |
| P2 | Degraded performance or partial failure | < 15 min acknowledgement; one engineer |
| P3 | Minor anomaly, no user impact | Next business hour |
If you cannot classify immediately, default to P1 and downgrade after Phase 1.
Investigation Workflow
Phase 1 — Triage (0–5 min)
- Confirm the signal — cross-check alert against at least one independent source (logs, dashboard, manual repro). Never declare from a single data point.
- Classify severity using the table above.
- Identify blast radius — which services, user segments, and whether data integrity is at risk.
- Open incident channel and post:
[P0/P1/P2] <service> — <symptom> — investigating - Assign roles (P0/P1): Incident Commander (comms only), Tech Lead (investigation), Scribe (timeline).
Phase 2 — Stabilize (5–15 min)
Apply mitigations before investigating. Stop at first "yes":
| Question | Action |
| Deploy in last 2 hours? | Roll back; confirm error rate drops |
| Config/feature-flag change? | Revert; confirm error rate drops |
| One bad instance/pod? | Remove from LB, restart |
| Downstream dependency down? | Enable fallback/circuit breaker |
| DB connection pool exhausted? | Restart pooler, reduce pool size |
| Traffic spike causing saturation? | Rate limit, add capacity, shed load |
After mitigation, post: [Update] Mitigation: <what>. Error rate: <before> → <after>. Investigating root cause.
Phase 3 — Root Cause (15–60 min)
3.1 — Build the Timeline
Start here. Every other step depends on this. Format: T-Xh: [event] through T+Xm: [resolution]. Sources: deployment history, config audit logs, monitoring dashboards, application logs, infrastructure events (CloudTrail, K8s events).
3.2 — Signal Analysis
Check in priority order:
| Metric | What it tells you |
| Error rate (5xx/4xx) | Which endpoints are failing |
| Latency p99 | Slowness vs. failure distinction |
| Saturation (CPU, memory, connections) | Resource exhaustion |
| Traffic volume (RPS) | Spike-driven vs. change-driven |
| Queue depth / backlog | Upstream pressure |
| Database metrics | Connection count, lock waits, slow queries |
| Dependency health | Which downstreams are responding |
USE Method: Utilization → Saturation → Errors. Apply to CPUs, memory, disk I/O, network, connection pools.
3.3 — Correlation (priority order)
- Deploys (within 2h) 2. Config/flag changes 3. Infrastructure changes 4. Traffic spikes 5. Dependency changes 6. Time-based patterns (cron/batch) 7. Data patterns (user/tenant/shape)
Rule: 80% of incidents are caused by the most recent deploy or config change.
git log --oneline --after="2 hours ago"
kubectl rollout history deployment/<service>
aws cloudtrail lookup-events --start-time ...3.4 — Hypothesis Testing
For each hypothesis: what evidence supports it, what would disprove it, does it explain the full timeline? Root cause is confirmed when: (1) it explains all symptoms, (2) it explains why the mitigation worked, (3) you can state it in one sentence with a mechanism. If you cannot — you have a symptom, not a root cause.
3.5 — Reproduce in Staging (P1/P2)
Reproduce in staging, confirm symptoms match production, confirm fix resolves it before pushing.
Phase 4 — Post-Mortem (within 48h of resolution)
See checklists/incident-checklist.md for the full checklist. Required sections: Timeline, Root Cause (one sentence), Why It Happened, Why We Didn't Catch It Earlier, Mitigation/Resolution, Action Items (owner + due date + type), What Went Well, What Went Poorly.
Release Readiness
Route "is this safe to deploy" questions to release-readiness.md (pre-deploy checklist, risk scoring, Go/No-Go).
Output Contract
Every investigation must produce this report:
## Incident Report
Severity: [P0/P1/P2/P3]
Status: [Active / Resolved / Monitoring]
Duration: [HH:MM from first symptom to resolution]
Impact: [# users, % traffic, SLA breach Y/N, revenue impact]
Timeline:
[T-Xh]: [event]
[T+0]: [incident start]
[T+Xm]: [resolution]
Root Cause: [one sentence — mechanism, not symptom]
Contributing Factors: [bullet list]
Blast Radius: [services, features, user segments]
Mitigation: [what stopped the bleeding and when]
Resolution: [what fully fixed it]
Detection Gap: [why not caught earlier]
Prevention: [action items to prevent recurrence]
Next Step: [one clear action, with owner]Approval Gates
Ask before taking any of these actions — once per action:
| Action | Requires approval |
| Execute a rollback in production | Yes |
| Restart a production service | Yes |
| Change a production config or feature flag | Yes |
| Post to incident channel or page someone | Yes |
| Run any cloud CLI command that mutates state | Yes |
| Delete data or database rows | Yes |
Anti-Patterns
See anti-patterns/common-mistakes.md for the full list. Critical rules:
- Never investigate before stabilizing — apply available mitigations first.
- Never skip building the timeline — investigations without timelines produce wrong root causes.
- Never declare root cause before it explains all symptoms and the resolution.
- Never skip the post-mortem for "minor" incidents — they carry the most preventable learnings.
- Never roll back without confirming the rollback actually fixed the issue (verify metrics drop).
Heuristics Quick Reference
- Correlates with deploy → deployment is prime suspect
- Gradual degradation over hours → resource leak (memory, connections, disk)
- Sudden spike at consistent interval → cron job or batch process
- Subset of traffic affected → feature flag, canary, or data-pattern issue
- Single region only → regional config or network issue
- Recent change window → 80% of incidents caused by last deploy or config change
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.

