agentleFS
SentryKnown publishergetsentry/sdk-skills/plugins/sentry-sdk-skills/skills/span-convention-review/SKILL.md

span-convention-review

Skill4 starsChanged 10 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Review OpenTelemetry tracing span changes in SDK repositories for conformance to Sentry Conventions and OTel Semantic Conventions. Use when reviewing span instrumentation, "review spans", "check span conventions", "span review", "OTel span check", "tracing convention review".

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    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:

    Look for patterns indicating span creation or modification:

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    If no diff is available, ask the user which files or changes to review.

    line 29
  3. Distinctive:

    If the Sentry convention page is underspecified for a particular attribute, span name format, or operation pattern, also fetch the …

    line 51
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not assume or hardcode convention details: Always fetch the live documentation to ensure you are reviewing against the latest version.

    line 53
  5. Very specific:

    Verify the op value matches the expected pattern defined in the fetched Sentry convention for the module.

    line 60
  6. Distinctive:

    Verify the span name follows the format specified in the fetched convention.

    line 63
  7. Distinctive:

    Verify all required span data attributes listed in the fetched convention are set.

    line 66
  8. Distinctive:

    Check that spans do not leak sensitive data:

    line 72
  9. Distinctive:

    Verify attributes use correct types as specified in the conventions:

    line 79
  10. Distinctive:

    Unknown module: If a span op doesn't match any known module, flag it and check if there's a new or updated convention page.

    line 135

≈ “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

Span Convention Review

Review changes in SDK repositories that involve OpenTelemetry tracing spans to ensure they conform to Sentry Conventions and, where Sentry conventions are underspecified, to OpenTelemetry Semantic Conventions.

Step 1: Identify Span Changes

Find all span-related changes in the current branch compared to the base branch:

git diff main...HEAD

Look for patterns indicating span creation or modification:

  • start_span, start_child, startSpan, StartSpan
  • op=, op:, setting span operation names
  • set_data, set_attribute, setAttribute, SetAttribute
  • description=, name=, span naming
  • SPANDATA., SpanData., span data constants
  • OP., span operation constants
  • References to gen_ai., db., http., cache., queue., messaging., resource., ui.

If no diff is available, ask the user which files or changes to review.

Step 2: Classify Spans by Module

Determine which Sentry Insights Module each span belongs to based on its operation prefix. Use this mapping to identify the relevant convention URLs:

Step 3: Fetch Current Conventions

For each module identified in Step 2, use WebFetch to retrieve the Sentry Convention page from the URL in the table above. Sentry conventions are the primary authority.

If the Sentry convention page is underspecified for a particular attribute, span name format, or operation pattern, also fetch the corresponding OTel Semantic Conventions page for supplementary guidance.

Do not assume or hardcode convention details. Always fetch the live documentation to ensure you are reviewing against the latest version.

Step 4: Review Each Span

For each span change, verify conformance against the fetched conventions for its module. Check the following categories:

4a. Span Operation (op)

Verify the op value matches the expected pattern defined in the fetched Sentry convention for the module.

4b. Span Name / Description

Verify the span name follows the format specified in the fetched convention.

4c. Required Attributes

Verify all required span data attributes listed in the fetched convention are set.

4d. Optional/Recommended Attributes

Flag if commonly expected optional attributes (listed in the fetched convention) are missing. These are "should have" not blockers.

4e. Data Sensitivity

Check that spans do not leak sensitive data:

  • Database queries must have user-supplied values scrubbed/parameterized
  • AI spans: input/output messages and system instructions should only be set when explicitly opted in (e.g., via a "send default PII" or "send prompts" setting)
  • HTTP spans should redact sensitive URL parameters
  • Cache keys should not contain raw user identifiers unless expected

4f. Attribute Types

Verify attributes use correct types as specified in the conventions:

  • Complex data (messages, tool definitions) must be stringified JSON, not raw objects
  • Boolean attributes must be actual booleans
  • Numeric attributes must be integers/numbers, not strings
  • Array attributes must be arrays

Step 5: Report Findings

Present findings grouped by severity:

Required Fixes (convention violations)

Issues that MUST be fixed — missing required attributes, wrong op format, incorrect span name patterns.

Recommended Improvements

Issues that SHOULD be addressed — missing recommended attributes, suboptimal naming.

Notes

Informational observations — things that look correct, edge cases to be aware of, or areas where conventions are ambiguous.

For each finding, include:

  1. File and line where the issue occurs
  2. What's wrong — the specific convention being violated
  3. Expected — what the convention requires
  4. Actual — what the code currently does
  5. Convention source — link to the specific Sentry or OTel convention page

Output Format

## Span Convention Review

### Required Fixes

1. **[file:line]** Missing required attribute `gen_ai.operation.name`
   - Convention: All AI agent spans MUST set `gen_ai.operation.name`
   - Source: https://develop.sentry.dev/sdk/telemetry/traces/modules/ai-agents/

2. **[file:line]** Incorrect span name format
   - Expected: `"chat {model}"` (e.g., `"chat gpt-4"`)
   - Actual: `"OpenAI chat completion"`
   - Source: https://develop.sentry.dev/sdk/telemetry/traces/modules/ai-agents/

### Recommended Improvements

1. **[file:line]** Missing recommended attribute `gen_ai.response.finish_reasons`
   - This attribute helps with debugging incomplete responses
   - Source: https://develop.sentry.dev/sdk/telemetry/traces/modules/ai-agents/

### Notes

- All cache spans correctly implement the `cache.hit` attribute
- Queue span naming follows OTel convention (Sentry convention is underspecified here)

Handling Edge Cases

  • Unknown module: If a span op doesn't match any known module, flag it and check if there's a new or updated convention page. If no convention exists, fall back to general OTel semantic conventions.
  • Multiple modules: Some integrations produce spans for multiple modules (e.g., Redis creates both cache.* and db.redis spans). Review each span type against its respective module convention.
  • SDK-specific patterns: Different SDKs use different APIs to create spans (Python uses start_span(op=..., name=...), JavaScript uses startSpan({op: ..., name: ...}), etc.). Focus on the semantic correctness of op, name, and attributes regardless of the API surface.
  • Origin attribute: While not part of module conventions, verify that origin is set on auto-instrumented spans (pattern: auto.{category}.{integration}). This is a general Sentry SDK convention.

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.