observability-check
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Verify a change is observable before merge — structured logging at decision points, no silent failures, correlation context, and dashboards/alerts for new failure modes
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- dotlabshq/cruxtheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- dotlabshq/crux★ 4same 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 repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- adopt-existing-projectSkill
- adrSkill
- branch-conflict-checkSkill
- ci-watchSkill
- compound-learningsSkill
- config-auditSkill
- cost-checkSkill
- coverage-ratchetSkill
- doc-syncSkill
- eval-harnessSkill
- flaky-triageSkill
- followup-trackingSkill
- incident-captureSkill
- kit-doctorSkill
- kit-updateSkill
- logging-initSkill
- migration-checkSkill
- new-project-bootstrapSkill
- nightly-auditSkill
- parallel-workSkill
- perf-budgetSkill
- pr-babysitterSkill
- pre-prSkill
- prompt-regressionSkill
- releaseSkill
- session-handoffSkill
- sync-healthSkill
- using-the-kitSkill
- writing-kit-skillsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 4 are 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.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
Run this on any change that adds a decision point, an external call, a fallback, a background job, a consumer, a pipeline stage, or a state …
- Very specific: line 27
Every branch that matters — a route chosen, a threshold crossed, a retry, a degraded path taken — emits a structured event with enough …
- Very specific: line 37
Every try/except that falls back must emit event_type="fallback_activated" (see templates/fallback_alert.py).
- Very specific: line 49
Not just external calls. Any operation that can be slow or can fail — an API/model/DB call, a batch stage, a cache rebuild, a file export, …
- Very specific: line 65
If the change introduces a new way to fail (a new background loop, a new integration), there's a path for it to reach a human: a dashboard …
- Distinctive: line 81
Never log secrets, API tokens, or PII (names, email addresses, phone numbers, message content) in structured log fields.
≈ “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
Observability Check
Run this on any change that adds a decision point, an external call, a fallback,
a background job, a consumer, a pipeline stage, or a state transition. The goal:
when this code misbehaves in production at 2am, the logs alone should tell you
what happened and why — without a redeploy to add logging. This applies to
every process type, not just API/model calls — the per-process event catalog
(jobs, consumers, pipelines, lifecycle, state machines, caches) is
docs/LOGGING_STANDARD.md; hold the change to the rows that apply. For a deeper
automated pass, dispatch the observability-reviewer agent; this skill is the
inline checklist. It reports gaps; it does not wire in the missing logging,
correlation IDs, or alerts itself — that fix stays with the author.
What to check
1. Decision points are logged
Every branch that matters — a route chosen, a threshold crossed, a retry, a
degraded path taken — emits a structured event with enough context to replay the
decision. Event names are snake_case (route_selected, budget_exceeded), not
prose. High-value events carry a namespaced event_type your pipeline can index.
2. No silent failures
Grep the diff for swallowed errors:
git diff main...HEAD | grep -nE 'except.*:\s*(pass|return|continue)|suppress\(Exception\)'Every try/except that falls back must emit event_type="fallback_activated"
(see templates/fallback_alert.py). A bare except: pass is a bug.
3. Correlation context flows
The change sets/propagates correlation_id (and user_id, task_id where
relevant) so a single request's logs can be stitched together across modules and
async boundaries. New entry points bind context at the top — and jobs,
consumers, and pipeline runs count as entry points: they bind a
run_id/job_id that plays the same role, and it travels across any queue or
process boundary the work crosses.
4. Every significant operation logs outcome + duration
Not just external calls. Any operation that can be slow or can fail — an
API/model/DB call, a batch stage, a cache rebuild, a file export, a migration —
emits a paired <name>_completed / <name>_failed event with duration_ms
(the log_operation helper in templates/logging_setup.py makes the pair one
line). For metered calls, add tokens and cost; failed-but-billed attempts still
get a row so spend is never lost.
4b. Long-running processes are legible while running, not just after
A job or pipeline that runs for minutes emits job_started, periodic
job_progress (items done / total), and a terminal event with items
processed / skipped / failed — a start event with no terminal event makes every
hang look like a crash. Skipped records log a record_skipped with a reason:
counts without reasons aren't replayable. State transitions log
from_state / to_state / trigger.
5. New failure modes are alertable
If the change introduces a new way to fail (a new background loop, a new
integration), there's a path for it to reach a human: a dashboard panel, an
alert rule, or at minimum an event_type that an existing error-explorer
dashboard already surfaces. Background tasks are supervised — an unexpected exit
logs and alerts, it doesn't die quietly. For scheduled work, remember the
inverse failure: a job that stops being scheduled emits nothing — the absence
of its job_completed heartbeat must be what alerts
(templates/healthwatch.py).
6. Logs are human-readable too
Field names are what a human would grep for. The console renderer (dev mode) produces a line an engineer can scan; the JSON renderer (prod) produces the same fields for the pipeline. Don't log opaque blobs or stringified dicts where structured fields belong.
7. PII & logging hygiene
Never log secrets, API tokens, or PII (names, email addresses, phone numbers,
message content) in structured log fields. Redact or omit user-supplied content
before it reaches the logging layer. Temporary debug fields must be removed
before merge; respect the project's retention policy for any fields that do
land in persistent storage. See docs/PII_LOGGING_CHECKLIST.md for the full
checklist.
Report every gap this check finds, including low-confidence ones, with the file/line it occurs at — do not pre-filter by severity. Downstream review is where triage happens: what blocks the merge is decided there, not by omitting findings here.
Output
## Observability Review
- Decision points logged: <yes / gaps: ...>
- Silent failures: <none / found at file:line>
- Correlation context (incl. job/run ids): <flows / missing at ...>
- Operation telemetry (outcome + duration, all ops): <complete / missing at ...>
- Long-running process legibility (start/progress/terminal, skip reasons): <yes / gaps: ... / N/A>
- New failure modes alertable (incl. missing-heartbeat): <yes / add panel|alert for ...>
- PII & logging hygiene: <clean / issues: ...>
- Verdict: PASS / FIX NEEDED — <items>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.

