metrics-review
Skill16 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Reviewing operational and business metrics for continuous improvement, trend analysis, and proactive issue detection.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- nisarth/claude-skills-storetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- anthropics/knowledge-work-pluginstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- agentdynarq/founder-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 15, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- nisarth/claude-skills-store★ 1same name
- agentdynarq/founder-skills★ 0same 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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/amazon-skills.mdCursor rule
- api-contract-firstSkill
- brownfield-discoverySkill
- code-review-bar-raisingSkill
- correction-of-errorsSkill
- dependency-managementSkill
- design-documentSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- feature-flag-lifecycleSkill
- implementation-memorySkill
- incremental-implementationSkill
- infrastructure-as-codeSkill
- mechanism-creationSkill
- operational-codeSkill
- operational-excellenceSkill
- operational-readiness-reviewSkill
- pipeline-safetySkill
- progressive-deploymentSkill
- spec-driven-implementationSkill
- test-driven-developmentSkill
- threat-modelingSkill
- using-amazon-skillsSkill
- wb-defineSkill
- wb-inventSkill
- wb-listenSkill
- wb-refineSkill
- wb-test-and-iterateSkill
- working-backwardsSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
19 rules. 0 are common, 19 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
19
Distinctive
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 20
After deploying a significant change (did it improve what we expected?)
- Distinctive: line 21
When planning capacity or architecture changes
- Distinctive: line 22
When evaluating the effectiveness of past improvements
- Distinctive: line 23
When investigating customer experience trends
- Distinctive: line 24
When preparing for a launch or traffic event
- Distinctive: line 81
No action needed (noise, already resolved)
- Distinctive: line 82
Create ticket for investigation (unclear signal, needs deeper analysis)
- Distinctive: line 84
Update alarm thresholds (metric moved but alarms didn't fire when they should have)
- Distinctive: line 94
DON'T: "p99 is 200ms, that seems fine"
- Distinctive: line 95
DO: "p99 is 200ms, which is 15% higher than 4 weeks ago.
- Distinctive: line 98
DON'T: "We had 99.95% availability this week"
- Distinctive: line 99
DO: "Availability was 99.95%, which is above our 99.9% SLA.
- Distinctive: line 102
DON'T: "We deployed 8 times this week"
- Distinctive: line 103
DO: "Deployment frequency dropped from 15/week to 8/week.
- Distinctive: line 110
Measurement bias: Only measuring happy path, not error paths or edge cases
- Distinctive: line 133
No one can explain why a metric moved in the last week
- Distinctive: line 135
Only averages reviewed (no percentile analysis)
- Distinctive: line 139
No automated anomaly detection — relying on humans to notice gradual changes
- Distinctive: line 162
Improvement must be measured: If you can't measure whether your fix worked, you don't know if it worked.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Metrics Review
Overview
Metrics review is the practice of regularly examining operational and business metrics to identify trends, detect degradation early, validate improvements, and drive data-informed decisions. Unlike incident response (reactive), metrics review is proactive—you're looking for problems before they become incidents and confirming that improvements are having the desired effect. Good metrics review distinguishes signal from noise and leads to concrete actions.
When to Use
- Weekly or monthly as a recurring service health review
- After deploying a significant change (did it improve what we expected?)
- When planning capacity or architecture changes
- When evaluating the effectiveness of past improvements
- When investigating customer experience trends
- When preparing for a launch or traffic event
Amazon Context
Amazon is deeply metrics-driven. The phrase "in God we trust, all others bring data" captures the culture. Anecdotes and opinions don't drive decisions—metrics do. But metrics can also mislead if you look at the wrong ones, use the wrong aggregation, or ignore confounding factors. A skilled metrics review requires understanding what the metric actually measures, what can influence it, and what actions the metric should trigger. Amazon engineers are expected to know their service's metrics cold and explain any movement.
The Process
Metric Categories
Customer Experience Metrics (primary — these matter most)
- Availability: percentage of requests served successfully
- Latency: p50, p90, p99, p99.9 — each tells a different story
- Error rate: 5xx (your fault), 4xx anomalies (possibly your fault)
- Throughput: requests per second (traffic health)
- Business success rate: conversions, completions, deliveries
Operational Health Metrics
- MTTD: Mean Time to Detect problems
- MTTR: Mean Time to Recover from problems
- Deployment frequency: How often you deploy (higher = smaller, safer changes)
- Rollback rate: What percentage of deploys rollback (lower = better pipeline)
- Change failure rate: Deploys that cause incidents
- On-call page count: Toil indicator
Resource Metrics
- CPU, memory, disk utilization across fleet
- Connection pool usage (database, HTTP clients)
- Queue depths and processing lag
- Cache hit rates
- Cost per request (efficiency)
Business Metrics
- Conversion rate, order rate, message delivery rate
- Customer contacts and complaint rate
- Feature adoption rate
- Revenue per request (where applicable)
Review Methodology
Step 1: Establish baselines
- What is "normal" for each metric? Use 4-week rolling average
- Account for daily patterns (peak hours), weekly patterns (weekdays vs weekends)
- Account for seasonal patterns (holiday traffic, end-of-month)
Step 2: Identify anomalies
- Spikes or dips outside 2 standard deviations from baseline
- Trend changes: gradual degradation over weeks
- Correlation between metrics (latency up AND error rate up = different from latency up alone)
- Missing data (gaps in metrics are a problem themselves)
Step 3: Classify the signal
- Is this a known event? (Deploy, traffic spike, downstream issue)
- Is this a new pattern requiring investigation?
- Is this noise? (Single point, already recovered, explained by external factor)
Step 4: Determine action
- No action needed (noise, already resolved)
- Create ticket for investigation (unclear signal, needs deeper analysis)
- Immediate action (clear degradation requiring intervention)
- Update alarm thresholds (metric moved but alarms didn't fire when they should have)
Step 5: Track over time
- Did the action item improve the metric?
- Is the improvement sustained or temporary?
- Are there second-order effects (improving one metric degrading another)?
What Good Metrics Review Looks Like
Looking at latency:
- DON'T: "p99 is 200ms, that seems fine"
- DO: "p99 is 200ms, which is 15% higher than 4 weeks ago. The increase started on March 3, which correlates with the deployment of feature X. This is within SLA but trending in the wrong direction. Action: investigate whether feature X added an unnecessary network call."
Looking at availability:
- DON'T: "We had 99.95% availability this week"
- DO: "Availability was 99.95%, which is above our 99.9% SLA. However, we had two 5-minute windows below 99% that affected approximately 2,000 customers. Both correlated with deployment bake periods. Action: Review bake time alarm sensitivity."
Looking at deployment frequency:
- DON'T: "We deployed 8 times this week"
- DO: "Deployment frequency dropped from 15/week to 8/week. This correlates with 3 rollbacks in the past 2 weeks. The team is likely deploying more cautiously due to recent failures. Action: Address the root cause of rollbacks to restore confidence, don't just accept lower velocity."
Metrics Anti-Patterns
- Vanity metrics: Numbers that look good but don't indicate customer health (e.g., "uptime" that excludes maintenance windows)
- Average-only thinking: Averages hide outliers. A p99 of 5s with p50 of 50ms means some customers are suffering badly
- Metric fixation: Optimizing one metric at the expense of others (e.g., reducing latency by returning cached stale data)
- Measurement bias: Only measuring happy path, not error paths or edge cases
- Ignoring rate of change: 200ms p99 is fine; going from 100ms to 200ms in one week is not fine
Mechanisms Over Good Intentions
| Intention | Mechanism |
| "I'll keep an eye on metrics" | Automated weekly metrics report generated and reviewed on a fixed cadence |
| "I'll notice if something degrades" | Anomaly detection alarms that fire on trend changes, not just absolute thresholds |
| "I'll investigate when things look off" | Degradation triggers automatic ticket creation with investigation template |
| "I'll track whether improvements worked" | Before/after metrics comparison required for closing improvement tickets |
Common Rationalizations
| What They Say | Why It's Wrong | What To Do Instead |
| "The metric is within SLA" | Within SLA doesn't mean optimal. Trending toward SLA breach means action is needed now | Track trend direction. Action triggers at 80% of SLA threshold, not 100% |
| "It's just noise" | Repeated "noise" is a pattern. Three noisy data points in a month is a signal | Track "noise" events. If the same anomaly repeats 3x, investigate systematically |
| "We don't have time for deep analysis" | Shallow analysis misses the root cause. You'll spend more time on repeated incidents | Invest 30 minutes in deep analysis now to avoid hours of incident response later |
| "Our metrics are green, we're good" | Green means meeting minimum bar. It doesn't mean you can't improve | Use metrics to drive improvement, not just pass/fail. Set stretch targets |
Red Flags
- No one can explain why a metric moved in the last week
- Metrics reviewed only during incidents, not proactively
- Only averages reviewed (no percentile analysis)
- Metrics not compared against baseline or trend
- Business metrics completely disconnected from operational metrics
- Metric degradation accepted without investigation ("it's always been like that")
- No automated anomaly detection — relying on humans to notice gradual changes
- Metrics dashboard hasn't been updated in 6+ months (stale)
- Cost metrics not tracked (operational spending growing without awareness)
Verification
- Weekly metrics review happens with documented findings
- Both customer experience and operational metrics are reviewed
- Percentile latency (p50, p99, p99.9) reviewed, not just averages
- Trend analysis compares current week to 4-week baseline
- Anomalies are classified and actioned (not ignored)
- Metrics improvement tracked after deploying changes
- Automated anomaly detection configured for key metrics
- Business metrics correlated with operational metrics
- Metrics targets defined and tracked (not just SLA minimum)
- Metrics review produces at least one insight or action per week
Tenets
- Metrics tell stories, not just numbers. A number without context is meaningless. Always compare against baseline, trend, and target.
- Proactive beats reactive. Finding degradation in metrics review is cheaper than finding it in an incident.
- Percentiles reveal truth. The average hides the suffering of your worst-affected customers. Always check p99.
- Every metric needs an owner. A metric no one watches is a metric no one will act on.
- Improvement must be measured. If you can't measure whether your fix worked, you don't know if it worked.
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.

