observability-planner
Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Design observability for AI and distributed systems: traces, metrics, logs, dashboards, and alerting aligned to SLOs. Use when planning monitoring, debugging LLM pipelines, or production readiness reviews.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Agile-V/agile_v_skillstheir own version, first seen May 25, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- Agile-V/agile_v_skills★ 54same 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 repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-memory-designerSkill
- ai-cost-optimizerSkill
- ai-evaluation-builderSkill
- ai-latency-optimizerSkill
- ai-solution-architectSkill
- ai-workflow-builderSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- human-in-the-loop-designerSkill
- multi-agent-plannerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prompt-optimizerSkill
- prompt-reviewerSkill
- adr-generatorSkill
- api-designerSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- component-diagram-builderSkill
- container-diagram-builderSkill
- data-flow-analyzerSkill
- integration-plannerSkill
- scalability-advisorSkill
- solution-architectureSkill
- system-context-builderSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- go-to-market-plannerSkill
- pricing-strategy-advisorSkill
- mcp-best-practicesSkill
- mcp-client-generatorSkill
- mcp-security-reviewSkill
- mcp-server-generatorSkill
- mcp-tool-generatorSkill
- acceptance-criteria-generatorSkill
- analytics-instrumentation-plannerSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- epic-generatorSkill
- feature-prioritizationSkill
- idea-validatorSkill
- north-star-metric-advisorSkill
- okr-builderSkill
- persona-generatorSkill
- prd-generatorSkill
- problem-statement-builderSkill
- product-discovery-assistantSkill
- product-vision-builderSkill
- sprint-plannerSkill
- story-mappingSkill
- user-story-generatorSkill
- value-proposition-designerSkill
- chunking-strategy-advisorSkill
- embedding-strategy-advisorSkill
- hybrid-search-advisorSkill
- knowledge-ingestion-plannerSkill
- rag-architecture-designerSkill
- retriever-optimizerSkill
- ai-governance-advisorSkill
- ai-threat-modelingSkill
- guardrails-builderSkill
- owasp-llm-reviewerSkill
- prompt-injection-detectorSkill
- skill-nameSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 33
Document error budget and escalation when burned.
- Distinctive: line 44
Use OpenTelemetry semantic conventions where available.
- Distinctive: line 83
Never log raw prompts/responses in prod.
≈ “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 Planner
Purpose
Design observability for AI-powered systems: what to trace, measure, log, alert on, and display — aligned to SLOs and incident response.
Input: System architecture, SLO targets, critical user journeys, stack constraints (cloud, APM vendor)
Output: Observability Plan with signal catalog, dashboard specs, alert rules, and runbook hooks
Examples: See examples.md for worked input/output.
Workflow
Step 1: Define SLIs and SLOs
| Journey | SLI | SLO example |
| Chat response | Availability + latency | 99.5% < 3s p95 |
| RAG query | Answer with citation | 98% success rate |
| Agent tool run | Tool success | 99% per tool |
| Batch ingest | Pipeline completion | 99.9% daily |
Document error budget and escalation when burned.
Step 2: Apply three pillars per component
| Component | Traces | Metrics | Logs |
| API gateway | Request span | RPS, 5xx rate | Access log |
| LLM call | Parent span + token attrs | latency, tokens, cost | model_id, prompt_hash |
| Vector DB | Query span | recall latency | index version |
| Queue/worker | Job span | backlog depth | job_id, retries |
Use OpenTelemetry semantic conventions where available.
Step 3: AI-specific observability
| Signal | Implementation | Alert |
| Trace per inference | Span: llm.chat with gen_ai.* attrs | p95 latency |
| RAG retrieval | Span: rag.retrieve + chunk IDs | empty retrieval rate |
| Tool execution | Span per tool with success/fail | failure rate >1% |
| Prompt version | prompt_version attribute | N/A (dimension) |
| Cost | token_count × price | daily budget |
| Quality proxy | User rating event | rating drop >10% |
Correlate with analytics-instrumentation-planner product events.
Step 4: Design dashboards
| Dashboard | Audience | Panels |
| Service health | On-call | SLO, error rate, latency heatmap |
| AI pipeline | AI engineers | Token usage, model mix, RAG stats |
| Business overlay | Product | DAU + error rate correlation |
Each panel links to trace exemplar for drill-down.
Step 5: Define alerts and runbooks
| Alert | Condition | Severity | Runbook |
| High 5xx | >1% 5min | P1 | Scale + rollback |
| LLM timeout | p95 > SLO 10min | P2 | Model fallback |
| Ingest lag | >1h | P2 | Queue drain playbook |
| Cost spike | +50% daily | P3 | Rate limit review |
Alerts must be actionable; tie to owner and escalation path.
Step 6: Logging and privacy
- Structured JSON logs with
trace_id,user_id(hashed),request_id - Never log raw prompts/responses in prod; use opt-in debug tier
- Retention: hot 7d, cold 30d, compliance per policy
Step 7: Validate
Run Validation checklist.
Decision Rules
| Condition | Action |
| No SLO defined | Stop; propose SLIs from critical journeys |
| Multi-tenant | Tag all signals with tenant_id |
| Third-party LLM only | Trace at client; log provider request IDs |
| Regulated data | No full payload logging; spans only |
| Serverless | Prefer metrics + traces; minimize log volume cost |
Validation
- SLIs/SLOs per critical journey
- Trace spans for LLM, RAG, and tools defined
- Metrics catalog with names and labels
- ≥2 dashboards specified with audience
- Alerts with thresholds and runbook links
- Privacy rules for prompts and PII in logs
- Error budget policy documented
- Correlation ID propagated end-to-end
Anti-patterns
- Logs only — cannot debug distributed LLM latency without traces.
- Alert fatigue — 50 thresholds nobody acts on.
- Dashboard vanity — charts without SLO line.
- Logging prompts in prod — security and compliance risk.
- Missing business metrics — ops green while users churn.
Best Practices
- Adopt OpenTelemetry early; one instrumentation for metrics + traces.
- Store
prompt_versionandmodel_idon every LLM span. - Practice game days: inject failure, verify alerts fire.
- Pair with
ai-evaluation-builderfor quality regressions. - Review observability coverage in architecture review checklist.
Output Structure
# Observability Plan: [System Name]
## SLOs
| Journey | SLI | Target | Error budget |
|---------|-----|--------|--------------|
## Signal Catalog
### Traces
[Span list + attributes]
### Metrics
[Name, labels, collection]
### Logs
[Fields, retention]
## Dashboards
[Panel descriptions]
## Alerts
| Name | Query | Threshold | Runbook |
## Privacy
[Logging restrictions]
## Rollout
[Instrumentation phases]Next Skills
| Outcome | Recommended Skill |
| Product-side metrics | product/analytics-instrumentation-planner |
| AI eval regression gates | ai/ai-evaluation-builder |
| Latency optimization | ai/ai-latency-optimizer |
| Cost dashboards | ai/ai-cost-optimizer |
| Architecture review | architecture/architecture-review |
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.

