agentleFS
abevzabevz/devops-skills/skills/observability-review/SKILL.md

observability-review

Skill0 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use when reviewing logs, metrics, traces, dashboards, alerts, or SLO readiness for a service. Mention "observability review", "are our alerts good", "SLO check" as triggers.

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

5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read existing instrumentation, dashboard panels, alert rules, and SLO definitions.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not equate a busy dashboard with useful service observability.

    line 22
  3. Distinctive:

    Follow the Workflow, Safety rules, and Quality checklist below.

    line 26
  4. Distinctive:

    Use when reviewing whether a service can be understood and debugged in production: its logs, metrics, traces, dashboards, alerts, and SLOs.

    line 37
  5. Very specific:

    Do not assume telemetry exists just because the code "should" emit it.

    line 91

≈ “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

Observability Review

TL;DR checklist

  • Inspect logs, metrics, traces, and alerts for the service journey.
  • Check whether signals cover user-visible errors and latency.
  • Rank gaps by the failure they leave undetectable.

Key read-only checks

  • Read existing instrumentation, dashboard panels, alert rules, and SLO definitions.

Common pitfalls

  • Do not equate a busy dashboard with useful service observability.

Agent procedure

Follow the Workflow, Safety rules, and Quality checklist below.

Quick references

  • references/prometheus-stack.md
  • references/instrumentation.md

Last verified: unverified

When to use

Use when reviewing whether a service can be understood and debugged in production: its logs, metrics, traces, dashboards, alerts, and SLOs.

Goal

Find the gaps between "we have telemetry" and "we can actually diagnose an incident with it in under five minutes."

Workflow

  1. Stack deployment (if setting one up) — before reviewing signals there has to be a stack. For the Prometheus/Grafana side see references/prometheus-stack.md: kube-prometheus-stack components, the ServiceMonitor/PodMonitor/PrometheusRule CRDs (and the selector-label trap that silently drops targets), storage/retention/remote-write, cardinality control, HA, and Grafana/Alertmanager provisioning as code.
  2. Logs — check for structured (not free-text) logging, consistent correlation/request IDs, appropriate levels, and that errors include enough context to act on (not just "request failed").
  3. Metrics — check for RED (Rate, Errors, Duration) on request-driven services and USE (Utilization, Saturation, Errors) on resources; flag missing error-rate or latency-percentile metrics as high priority.
  4. Traces — check whether cross-service calls are traceable end-to-end, and whether trace IDs are correlated with logs.
  5. Dashboards — check whether a dashboard exists that answers "is this service healthy right now" at a glance, versus one that's just a wall of raw graphs.
  6. Alerts — check each alert for: does it fire on a symptom that matters to users, does it have a sane threshold, is it likely to be noisy (flapping, no hysteresis), and does it link to a runbook.
  7. Runbooks — check that alerts and dashboards link to a runbook or troubleshooting guide, not just a raw query.
  8. Tracing/metric gaps — call out the specific missing signal that would have shortened the last incident, if known.

References

  • references/instrumentation.md — probes as the observability foundation, Prometheus scraping (annotations vs ServiceMonitor), a hardened instrumented-deployment checklist, metric naming/buckets, alert-vs-dashboard guidance, and logging/tracing patterns for Kubernetes.
  • references/prometheus-stack.md — deploying/operating kube-prometheus-stack: components and CRDs (ServiceMonitor/PodMonitor/PrometheusRule + the selector-label trap), storage/retention/ remote-write to Thanos/Mimir/VM, cardinality control, HA/dedup, Alertmanager routing, Grafana provisioning as code, GitOps bootstrap ordering (ServerSideApply for big CRDs), and troubleshooting.

For deploying/scaling the stack itself beyond the base install — Prometheus HA/sharding/remote- write, Thanos vs Mimir long-term storage, OpenTelemetry Collector pipelines, Loki/Tempo backends — use the observability-stack skill.

Safety rules

  • This is a review skill: do not modify alerting rules, dashboards, or monitoring config directly unless explicitly asked.
  • Flag noisy or non-actionable alerts explicitly — silence on this is a common failure mode.
  • Do not assume telemetry exists just because the code "should" emit it; verify from actual dashboards/queries/config where possible, and mark anything unverified.

Output format

## Useful signals already present
## Logging gaps
## Metrics gaps (RED/USE)
## Tracing gaps
## Dashboard gaps
## Alert quality issues (noisy / non-actionable / missing runbook link)
## Top 3 improvements to make first

Quality checklist

  • Every alert reviewed was checked for noise/actionability, not just existence
  • RED/USE coverage was checked explicitly, not assumed
  • Missing runbook links are called out per alert, not just in general
  • Recommendations are prioritized, not a flat list
  • No monitoring config was changed without being asked

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.