flow-observe
Skill1 starsChanged 48 days agoMITView on GitHub
Observability for a service or feature: structured logs, metrics, traces and alerts tied to user impact. Use when adding telemetry or alerts, before a launch, or after an incident lacked signal. Feeds `flow-triage` and `flow-diagnose`.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- flow-a11ySkill
- flow-adversarial-reviewSkill
- flow-animateSkill
- flow-apiSkill
- flow-benchmarkSkill
- flow-brainstormSkill
- flow-commitSkill
- flow-data-migrateSkill
- flow-depsSkill
- flow-designSkill
- flow-diagnoseSkill
- flow-docsSkill
- flow-git-fixSkill
- flow-handoffSkill
- flow-migrateSkill
- flow-onboardSkill
- flow-orchestrateSkill
- flow-planSkill
- flow-pr-fixSkill
- flow-prototypeSkill
- flow-prune-agent-setupSkill
- flow-redesignSkill
- flow-refactorSkill
- flow-releaseSkill
- flow-repo-briefSkill
- flow-reviewSkill
- flow-shipSkill
- flow-simplifySkill
- flow-specializeSkill
- flow-stylesSkill
- flow-testSkill
- flow-triageSkill
- flow-uiSkill
- flow-verifySkill
- flow-workSkill
- flow-write-skillSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Distinctive: line 19
Read the existing telemetry stack, libraries, naming conventions and dashboards.
- Distinctive: line 45
Check volume and cost of new telemetry.
- Very specific: line 61
Use the signals in flow-triage and flow-diagnose when something breaks.
≈ “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
Observe
Instrument so that the next failure is detected by a signal, not a user, and can be explained from the data without a redeploy. Every signal needs a question it answers.
Phase 1: Define what matters
- Name the user-facing outcomes and the questions an on-call engineer will ask: is it working, for whom is it failing, since when, and where in the path.
- Pick a few service-level indicators from those outcomes (success rate, latency percentiles, freshness, correctness), with targets when the team uses them.
- Read the existing telemetry stack, libraries, naming conventions and dashboards. Extend them; do not add a second logging or tracing library.
Phase 2: Instrument the path
- Logs: structured events at decision points and boundaries, with a correlation or trace ID, stable field names and levels that mean something. Log failures with the context to act on them. Never log secrets, tokens or personal data; redact at the source.
- Metrics: rate, errors and duration for requests, plus saturation for queues, pools and resources. Keep label cardinality bounded: no user IDs, raw URLs or free text as labels.
- Traces: propagate context across process, queue and service boundaries, and span the slow or failure-prone steps, using the project's standard (for example OpenTelemetry) when present.
- Business and job signals: counts for key outcomes, and heartbeats or last-success timestamps for scheduled work that can fail silently.
Phase 3: Alert on symptoms
- Alert on user-visible symptoms and burn against targets, not on every cause. Each alert names its impact, a threshold with a reason, and a runbook or first diagnostic step.
- Route by severity: page for urgent user impact, ticket for slow degradation.
- Build or update one dashboard that answers the Phase 1 questions in order.
Phase 4: Prove the signal
Trigger the failure in a safe environment (bad input, a stopped dependency, an injected delay) and confirm the log, metric, trace and alert each show it with enough context to diagnose. Check volume and cost of new telemetry. Without a runnable environment, state which signals are unverified.
Anti-patterns
- Logging everything at info and calling it observability.
- Alerts nobody can act on, or thresholds copied without a reason.
- High-cardinality labels that explode metric cost.
- Personal data or credentials in logs, traces or error reports.
Done when
- The on-call questions can be answered from the signals for a triggered failure.
- Alerts have impact, thresholds, routing and a first step.
- Telemetry follows existing conventions, with privacy and cardinality checked.
Use the signals in flow-triage and flow-diagnose when something breaks.
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.

