agentleFS
tiago-oliveira-catiago-oliveira-ca/zenodotus-harness/skills/documentation/operations-standards/SKILL.md

operations-standards

Skill1 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub

Standards for runbooks, incident response, postmortems, and operational readiness. Use when writing or reviewing how a system is operated, supported, or recovered in production. Trigger on: "write a runbook", "runbook", "incident response", "postmortem", "post-incident review", "on-call", "SLO", "SLA", "error budget", "operational readiness", "go-live checklist", "production support", "escalation path", "rollback procedure", or any document defining how to operate, support, monitor, or recover a system once it's live.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill when creating or reviewing a runbook, incident response procedure, or postmortem.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Monitoring & Alerting: every alert that can fire, and what it means

    line 46
  3. Distinctive:

    Every runbook step must be executable by someone unfamiliar with the system during an active incident — no tribal knowledge assumed, no …

    line 67
  4. Distinctive:

    Every alert referenced anywhere must state what it means and the first action to take.

    line 69
  5. Distinctive:

    Every postmortem action item needs an owner and a due date — an action item with neither is a wish, not a commitment.

    line 72
  6. Distinctive:

    Every runbook should pass this test before it's trusted during an incident:

    line 79

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Operations Standards

Use this skill when creating or reviewing a runbook, incident response procedure, or postmortem. These documents close the lifecycle loop — they turn what happens in production back into input for the next design revision, rather than living only in an engineer's head.

Production-readiness split (CLAUDE.md lane row): this skill owns the documents — runbooks, go-live checklists, postmortems. Judging launch readiness is zeno-stack/zeno-production-audit; the deployment mechanics those documents describe (health checks, rollback strategy, topology) are owned by zeno-stack/zeno-deployment-patterns.

Core Boundaries

  • Runbook: How to operate, deploy, monitor, and recover a specific system — step-by-step, meant to be followed during an incident by someone who isn't its author.
  • Postmortem: A retrospective analysis of an incident that already happened — what broke, why, and what changes result. Not a runbook, and not a blame record.
  • ADR: Captures why an architectural decision was made. A runbook executes against the architecture; it doesn't re-argue it.
  • SAD / Blueprint: Defines system structure. A runbook references it, never redefines it — if the runbook and the SAD disagree about topology, the SAD is stale and needs updating first (see Change Management in ../references/lifecycle.md).

Required Inputs

  • System/component boundaries and ownership (from the SAD)
  • Known failure modes and critical dependencies
  • SLO/SLA and RTO/RPO targets (from the NFR)
  • Escalation contacts, on-call rotation, and ownership
  • Existing monitoring/alerting definitions

Recommended Runbook Structure

  1. Document Control: version, authors, dates, status, review cadence
  2. Service Overview & Ownership: what it does, who owns it
  3. Architecture Summary: link to the SAD — don't repeat it
  4. Dependencies & Failure Modes: what this depends on, how each dependency fails
  5. Monitoring & Alerting: every alert that can fire, and what it means
  6. Standard Operating Procedures: routine tasks — deploy, scale, restart, rotate secrets
  7. Incident Response Procedures: step-by-step response per known failure mode
  8. Escalation Path: who's on call, secondary, and when to escalate further
  9. Rollback / Recovery Procedures: how to restore service, and to what RTO/RPO
  10. Appendices: dashboard links, log queries, related ADRs

Recommended Postmortem Structure (Blameless)

  1. Incident Summary: what happened, customer/business impact, duration
  2. Timeline: detection through resolution, with timestamps
  3. Root Cause: the actual mechanism, not just the symptom
  4. Contributing Factors: what made this possible or worse than it needed to be
  5. What Went Well / What Went Poorly
  6. Action Items: owner + due date for each, fed back through Change Management if any imply an architecture or ADR change
  7. Lessons for the Runbook or Architecture: what should change so this class of incident is faster to detect or recover from next time

Writing Rules

  • Every runbook step must be executable by someone unfamiliar with the system during an active incident — no tribal knowledge assumed, no "you'll know it when you see it."
  • Every alert referenced anywhere must state what it means and the first action to take.
  • Postmortems are blameless: describe systems and processes that allowed the failure, never individuals.
  • Every postmortem action item needs an owner and a due date — an action item with neither is a wish, not a commitment.
  • SLOs and error budgets are versioned and reviewed on a cadence (see Documentation Governance in ../references/lifecycle.md), not set once at launch and forgotten.

Runbook Readiness Test

Every runbook should pass this test before it's trusted during an incident:

CheckBad ExampleGood Example
Executable without the author"Restart the service""Run systemctl restart order-svc on host X; verify recovery via /health returning 200"
Alert has a defined first actionAlert fires with no accompanying note"OrderQueueAgeHigh → check consumer lag via kubectl logs ...; escalate to secondary after 15 min"
Escalation path is explicit"Ping the team"Named on-call rotation, secondary, and manager escalation after N minutes
Tied to an SLO/RTONo target stated"Restore service within the RTO of 4h per NFR-012"

Anti-pattern quick reference

Anti-PatternProblemFix
Runbook written once at launch, never updatedDrifts from reality, fails exactly when needed mostReview on the same cadence as the SAD it references
Tribal knowledge in one person's headBus factor of one; incidents stall when they're unavailableRunbook must be independently executable by any on-call engineer
Blame-focused postmortemSuppresses honest reporting, hides the real root causeBlameless format — focus on systems and process, not people
Action items with no ownerNothing gets fixedRequire an owner and due date, tracked like any other work item
Alerts with no corresponding runbook entryOn-call improvises mid-incidentEvery alert must map to a documented procedure
Postmortem findings never reach the SAD/ADRSame incident class recursRoute architecture-relevant lessons through Change Management

Review Workflow

  1. Confirm the runbook matches the current SAD — not a prior, since-changed architecture.
  2. Walk every alert and confirm it maps to a documented first action.
  3. Confirm escalation paths and on-call ownership are current, not stale contacts.
  4. For postmortems: confirm timeline accuracy, root-cause depth (not just the symptom), and that every action item has an owner and due date.
  5. Confirm any learning that implies an architecture change is routed through Change Management (../references/lifecycle.md) rather than fixed silently in code.

Pre-flight checklist — run before delivering any runbook or operational document

  • Runbook covers standard operations and every known incident response procedure
  • Every alert maps to a documented first action
  • Escalation path and on-call ownership are explicit and current
  • SLO/RTO/RPO targets are referenced from the NFR, not invented ad hoc
  • Postmortems are blameless and every action item has an owner and due date
  • Document control, version, and review cadence match the governance model
  • Learnings that imply an architecture change are routed through Change Management

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.