agentleFS
jpantsjohajpantsjoha/ai-native-developer-experience/skills/cloud-expert/SKILL.md

cloud-expert

Skill13 starsChanged 27 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Cloud guardrails for any vendor workload — Google Cloud (GCP, Vertex AI, GKE), AWS (IAM, EKS, Bedrock), Azure (Entra ID, Policy, AKS), Alibaba Cloud (RAM, mainland/international residency). Enforces identity least-privilege, mechanical policy, data boundaries, residency, cost caps, network egress and observability, with official-source validation before any claim. Trigger on any cloud infrastructure design, review, Terraform plan, or LLM/agent deployment; the-architect routes here.

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:

    Before deploying agents or LLM workloads to a cloud provider

    line 24
  2. Distinctive:

    When a system touches multiple tenants, regulated data, or crosses a regional boundary

    line 26
  3. Very specific:

    When the-architect records a decision that names a specific cloud

    line 27
  4. Distinctive:

    Every service, quota, price or model claim cites an official document from the vendor's documentation or architecture centre (URLs in each …

    line 57
  5. Distinctive:

    One vendor reference per decision: Do not let a multi-cloud design inherit the weakest provider's defaults.

    line 75

≈ “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

Cloud Expert

Identity, tenancy, residency and cost are the design constraints — not the console's defaults.

One procedure, four vendor references. This skill enforces the discipline that makes a cloud workload production-safe on whichever provider the team runs. It is not a vendor feature catalogue: read the vendor reference for specifics, then apply the shared procedure.

VendorReferenceIdentity modelPolicy engine
Google Cloudreferences/gcp.mdIAM + Workload Identity FederationOrganisation Policy, VPC Service Controls
AWSreferences/aws.mdIAM roles + OIDC federationSCPs, Config, Control Tower
Azurereferences/azure.mdEntra ID + managed identitiesAzure Policy, Management Groups
Alibaba Cloudreferences/alibaba.mdRAM roles + STSResource Directory, Control Policies; mainland / international split

When to use

  • Designing any cloud infrastructure, new or modified
  • Before deploying agents or LLM workloads to a cloud provider
  • Reviewing a Terraform plan or an architecture diagram for a cloud workload
  • When a system touches multiple tenants, regulated data, or crosses a regional boundary
  • When the-architect records a decision that names a specific cloud

Procedure

Open the vendor reference first; every step below has vendor detail there.

  1. Identity and access — least privilege for every workload identity and human role: no broad administrative roles on service identities; federated identities over long-lived keys; conditional, time-bound access where the platform supports it.
  2. Governance made mechanical — region, resource-type and service constraints enforced by the platform's policy engine, not by convention; resource hierarchy mirrors environment and data classification; audit logging on identity changes and data-plane operations before any data lands.
  3. Data boundaries — for every store: classification (public / internal / confidential / regulated), encryption at rest with customer-managed keys where required, tenant separation enforced at the data layer, and an explicit agreement wherever data crosses an account, project, subscription or organisation boundary.
  4. Residency — every resource pinned to the required geography; policy prevents accidental multi-region or global creation; model endpoints regional where residency matters.
  5. Cost controls — budget alerts at 50 / 75 / 90 / 100 %; autoscaling upper bounds set; LLM call volumes capped or rate-limited; commitments or spot capacity evaluated.
  6. Network and egress — private connectivity where public endpoints are avoidable; egress estimated for cross-region and internet-bound traffic; default-deny with explicit allows.
  7. Observability — dashboards, alerting on error rate, latency and cost, and log routing to a central retention point, all before go-live.
  8. Run the Adversarial Gate — name the vendor's common failure modes (listed in each reference) and confirm each has a mitigation or a named risk owner.

Official sources — validate before you assert

Every service, quota, price or model claim cites an official document from the vendor's documentation or architecture centre (URLs in each reference). Quotas, prices and model names are dated facts: stale until re-verified against the source on the day you assert them.

Outputs

  • Guardrail checklist (pass / fail per item), per vendor
  • Identity matrix: principal | role | scope | justification
  • Data classification and boundary map; residency confirmation
  • Budget alert and autoscaling-bound confirmation
  • Open findings for human review

Guardrails

  • No administrative roles on workload identities. Ever.
  • Residency is a constraint, not a preference. Enforce it with policy, not convention.
  • Budget alerts are not optional. An unmonitored LLM workload produces a surprise invoice.
  • Audit logs are evidence. Enable them before go-live, not after an incident.
  • One vendor reference per decision. Do not let a multi-cloud design inherit the weakest provider's defaults; run the procedure per vendor.

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.