ecs-operation-review
Skill93 starsChanged 21 days agoMIT-0View on GitHub
Run a structured Amazon ECS operational-excellence assessment against a live estate (Fargate/EC2/Managed Instances/ECS Anywhere) and score it GREEN/AMBER/RED. Skip for EKS/Kubernetes (use eks-operation-review). Covers 8 domains — clusters & capacity, networking, task definitions, services & deployment safety (circuit breaker, blue/green, canary), service health & autoscaling (grace period, draining, AZ rebalancing), observability, security posture, and operational processes — producing a rated report with prioritized actions. Activate for "audit my ECS estate", "ECS health check", "score my ECS posture", "review my ECS services", "GREEN/AMBER/RED my ECS clusters", including single-domain reviews. For Day-0 design use ecs-architect; for security hardening use ecs-security; for cost/TCO use ecs-cost-intelligence; for observability design use ecs-observability; for CI/CD engineering use ecs-devops; for replatform/refactor use ecs-modernize; for read-only inventory use ecs-recon (siblings once available).
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- aws/tools-for-devops-agenttheir own version, first seen Nov 3, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- aws/tools-for-devops-agent★ 137same 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 repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- rules/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- apexSkill
- dotnet-aws-ecsSkill
- ecs-architectSkill
- ecs-buildSkill
- ecs-devopsSkill
- ecs-genaiSkill
- ecs-modernizeSkill
- ecs-observabilitySkill
- ecs-reconSkill
- ecs-securitySkill
- eks-best-practicesSkill
- eks-buildSkill
- eks-cost-intelligenceSkill
- eks-designSkill
- eks-genaiSkill
- eks-ingress-migrationSkill
- eks-mcp-serverSkill
- eks-operation-reviewSkill
- eks-platform-engineeringSkill
- eks-reconSkill
- eks-securitySkill
- eks-upgrade-checkSkill
- eks-well-architected-reviewSkill
- graviton-migrationSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- terraform-skillSkill
- update-docsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
Distinctive · estimate
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 72
Do NOT call any tools when this skill is first activated: Wait for the user to explicitly ask for a review.
- Distinctive: line 73
Do NOT hardcode or guess cluster/service names: Always discover them by listing first.
- Distinctive: line 74
Do NOT read config files as a connectivity "check": Verify access by making one real read call.
- Distinctive: line 75
Do NOT retry a failed call more than once: If it fails twice, mark the affected items UNKNOWN with the failure reason and continue.
- Very specific: line 77
Never mutate: Only describe/list/get verbs.
- Distinctive: line 78
Only rate on observed evidence: If a check returns no data, mark UNKNOWN — never assume.
- Distinctive: line 105
Action 4 — Confirm: Ask: *"Ready to start the operational review on <cluster> (<N> services)?"* Proceed only after the user confirms.
- Very specific: line 126
Read references/report-generation.md and follow it exactly.
≈ “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
ECS Operation Review
This skill performs a structured, evidence-based operational-excellence assessment of a live Amazon ECS estate — clusters, capacity providers, services, task definitions, and their supporting AWS resources — and produces a rated report (GREEN / AMBER / RED / UNKNOWN / N/A) with prioritized, cited recommendations.
It is the umbrella Day-2 audit that walks the major domains of the Amazon ECS Best Practices Guide (ecs-best-practices.html). It is evaluative (it grades what exists), not generative — it does not design or build new environments, and it defers to the deep ECS skills for remediation depth rather than duplicating them (see "Defers to deep skills").
This skill is for Amazon ECS only. Skip it for EKS / Kubernetes estates — use eks-operation-review instead.
Scope & limitations (known blind spots)
This review is deliberately bounded. It does not currently assess, and should state as out-of-scope in the report:
- Scheduled and standalone tasks — the audit enumerates workloads via
list-services; EventBridge-scheduled tasks and one-offrun-taskworkloads are not examined. - ECS Express Mode services — their ALB, security groups, and deployment config are auto-managed by AWS, so checks 2.2 / 4.x / 5.2 would mis-rate them. Mark N/A.
- Windows and ECS Anywhere (
EXTERNAL) workloads — several container-hardening and runtime-monitoring checks (3.x, 7.3, 7.4) assume Linux on Fargate/EC2 and would false-RED Windows or external tasks. Note their presence and mark the affected items N/A. - API throttling on large estates — when iterating over many services/task definitions, expect ECS API throttling; paginate and back off (see the pagination note in
references/operational-processes.md).
State any of these that apply to the estate explicitly in the report's Scope block rather than silently omitting them.
When to use
Activate for any request to audit, review, health-check, or score an ECS estate's operational posture:
- "Run an operational review on my ECS cluster / estate"
- "ECS health check", "score my ECS posture", "GREEN/AMBER/RED my ECS services"
- "Review my ECS deployment safety / capacity / networking / observability / security posture"
- Section-scoped reviews of a single domain (e.g., "check my ECS capacity-provider scale-in", "review connection draining on my services", "audit my task-definition hygiene")
Don't use for (route elsewhere)
| Request | Route to |
| "Which launch type should I use — Fargate vs EC2 vs Managed Instances?", greenfield architecture/design/selection | ecs-architect (Day-0 design; generative) |
| Read-only inventory / "what's in my estate" / discovery report before an audit | ecs-recon (discovery front door; until then inventory with aws ecs describe-*) |
| Deep security hardening, task/execution-role trust remediation, PCI/HIPAA/FedRAMP scoping | ecs-security |
| Dollar-quantified cost / TCO / Savings Plans / Spot / Graviton right-sizing | ecs-cost-intelligence |
| Designing the logs/metrics/traces stack (FireLens vs ADOT vs Datadog) | ecs-observability |
| Building deployment pipelines / choosing rollout strategy / CI-CD engineering | ecs-devops |
| Replatform vs refactor of an existing application | ecs-modernize |
The deep ECS sibling skills named above (ecs-architect, ecs-recon, ecs-security, ecs-cost-intelligence, ecs-observability, ecs-devops, ecs-modernize) are part of the ECS skill family and may be rolled out over time; route to them by name where relevant, and if one is not yet available, note that and fall back to the AWS CLI / this skill's audit-depth guidance. General container questions, one-off aws ecs commands, and cluster creation should be handled directly without this skill.
Defers to deep skills
This review scores each domain at audit depth — enough to rate it and flag the top gaps — then hands off. When a finding warrants deeper work, name the sibling skill in the recommendation rather than reproducing its guidance here:
- Security posture findings (Section 07) →
ecs-securityfor role-trust hardening, secrets, compliance scope. - Cost / capacity-efficiency angles surfaced during the capacity review (Section 01) →
ecs-cost-intelligencefor $-denominated TCO. - Observability findings (Section 06) →
ecs-observabilityfor stack design. - Deployment / release-engineering findings (Section 04) →
ecs-devopsfor pipeline and rollout-strategy design.
The review's own output is an assessment report. Acting on it (mutations, pipeline changes) is a separate, deliberate step the user chooses.
Access model — READ-ONLY
This skill is strictly read-only. It CAN issue read-only calls (aws ecs describe-*/list-*, sts get-caller-identity, application-autoscaling describe-*, autoscaling describe-*, cloudwatch describe-*, ec2 describe-*, ecr describe-*, iam get-*/list-*, elbv2 describe-*, logs describe-*, events list-*, backup list-*, guardduty list-*/get-*, service-quotas get-*/list-*) to discover estate state, and CAN write a markdown/HTML report to the workspace. It CANNOT mutate any resource (no create, update, delete, register, deregister, run-task, or scale operations). Operational reviews are discovery activities; remediation belongs to whatever path the user chooses afterward.
Prerequisites
- AWS credentials with ECS read access (and read access to CloudWatch, ECR, IAM, ELBv2, Application Auto Scaling, GuardDuty for full coverage). ReadOnly/least-privilege credentials are preferred.
- AWS CLI v2 configured with a default Region (
aws configure get region). - Python 3.10+ for the optional HTML report conversion.
- Optional: the Amazon ECS MCP server (preview) for richer live-estate inspection. If configured, its read tools may be used; the skill works fully with the AWS CLI alone. See ECS MCP server docs. The ECS MCP server is in preview and subject to change — do not depend on it; the AWS CLI is the reliable primary path.
Tool usage rules (invariants)
- Do NOT call any tools when this skill is first activated. Wait for the user to explicitly ask for a review.
- Do NOT hardcode or guess cluster/service names. Always discover them by listing first.
- Do NOT read config files as a connectivity "check". Verify access by making one real read call.
- Do NOT retry a failed call more than once. If it fails twice, mark the affected items UNKNOWN with the failure reason and continue.
- Always load the relevant
references/file before executing that section's checks. - Never mutate. Only
describe/list/getverbs. If a check would require a write, mark UNKNOWN and note it for manual investigation. - Only rate on observed evidence. If a check returns no data, mark UNKNOWN — never assume.
Methodology
Step 0 — Pre-flight
Action 1 — List clusters.
aws ecs list-clusters --output json- Success → show the list. If one cluster, confirm: "I found one cluster:
<name>. Assess this one?" If many, ask which cluster(s) or whether to assess the whole estate. - Failure → STOP (do not retry more than once). Show:
Cannot list ECS clusters. Check: (1)
aws sts get-caller-identity, (2)aws configure get region, (3) that the credentials haveecs:ListClusters.
Action 2 — Describe the selected cluster(s).
aws ecs describe-clusters --clusters <name> --include SETTINGS CONFIGURATIONS TAGS STATISTICS ATTACHMENTS --output jsonShow: cluster name, Region, account ID, status, registered capacity providers, default capacity-provider strategy, containerInsights setting, running/pending task counts, and tags.
Action 3 — Enumerate services and capacity providers (verifies read access).
aws ecs list-services --cluster <name> --output json
aws ecs describe-capacity-providers --output json- Success → proceed. Failure → mark the affected sections UNKNOWN and continue.
Action 4 — Confirm. Ask: "Ready to start the operational review on <cluster> (<N> services)?" Proceed only after the user confirms.
Steps 1–8 — Run the assessment
For each domain, in section order, read the corresponding references/ file first, then execute its checks and rate each item with the rubric below. If a whole section fails (permissions, timeouts), mark all its items UNKNOWN with a note and continue — one failed section must not block the rest.
| # | Section | Reference file |
| 01 | Clusters & Capacity (scale-in correctness, Managed Instances, capacity-provider strategy) | references/cluster-capacity.md |
| 02 | Networking (awsvpc, ENI/SG-per-task, subnet IP capacity, VPC endpoints, Service Connect) | references/networking.md |
| 03 | Task Definitions (task size, images, volumes, log config, task/execution roles referenced) | references/task-definitions.md |
| 04 | Services & Deployment Safety (circuit breaker + rollback, native blue/green, canary/linear, min/max healthy %) | references/services-deployment.md |
| 05 | Service Health & Autoscaling (health-check grace period, LB health check, connection draining, service auto scaling, AZ rebalancing, placement) | references/service-health-scaling.md |
| 06 | Observability (Container Insights enhanced, FireLens/awslogs, retention, alerting, tracing) | references/observability.md |
| 07 | Security Posture (role trust & least privilege, secrets, container hardening, GuardDuty, ECR scanning) | references/security-posture.md |
| 08 | Operational Processes (IaC provenance/tagging, DR/backup, runbooks, on-call, Fargate task retirement) | references/operational-processes.md |
Section-scoped requests load only the matching file(s) and produce a focused report.
Step 9 — Generate the report
Read references/report-generation.md and follow it exactly. See references/scoring-rubric.md for the full rating rules and the mandatory consistency contract.
Rating rubric (summary)
| Rating | Meaning |
| 🟢 GREEN | Fully implemented — matches ECS best practices |
| 🟡 AMBER | Partial or inconsistent — improvement opportunity |
| 🔴 RED | Not implemented or significant gap — action needed |
| ⬜ UNKNOWN | Cannot be determined from estate data — investigate manually |
| ⚪ N/A | Check does not apply to this estate (compute model / architecture) — excluded from scoring and from Investigate Manually |
Prioritize by blast radius: security > availability > cost. Every RED must carry a specific, cited, actionable recommendation. Full rules: references/scoring-rubric.md.
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.

