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
- Distinctive: line 14
Use this skill when creating or reviewing a runbook, incident response procedure, or postmortem.
- Distinctive: line 46
Monitoring & Alerting: every alert that can fire, and what it means
- Distinctive: line 67
Every runbook step must be executable by someone unfamiliar with the system during an active incident — no tribal knowledge assumed, no …
- Distinctive: line 69
Every alert referenced anywhere must state what it means and the first action to take.
- Distinctive: line 72
Every postmortem action item needs an owner and a due date — an action item with neither is a wish, not a commitment.
- Distinctive: line 79
Every runbook should pass this test before it's trusted during an incident:
≈ “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.
Files
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
- Document Control: version, authors, dates, status, review cadence
- Service Overview & Ownership: what it does, who owns it
- Architecture Summary: link to the SAD — don't repeat it
- Dependencies & Failure Modes: what this depends on, how each dependency fails
- Monitoring & Alerting: every alert that can fire, and what it means
- Standard Operating Procedures: routine tasks — deploy, scale, restart, rotate secrets
- Incident Response Procedures: step-by-step response per known failure mode
- Escalation Path: who's on call, secondary, and when to escalate further
- Rollback / Recovery Procedures: how to restore service, and to what RTO/RPO
- Appendices: dashboard links, log queries, related ADRs
Recommended Postmortem Structure (Blameless)
- Incident Summary: what happened, customer/business impact, duration
- Timeline: detection through resolution, with timestamps
- Root Cause: the actual mechanism, not just the symptom
- Contributing Factors: what made this possible or worse than it needed to be
- What Went Well / What Went Poorly
- Action Items: owner + due date for each, fed back through Change Management if any imply an architecture or ADR change
- 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:
| Check | Bad Example | Good 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 action | Alert 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/RTO | No target stated | "Restore service within the RTO of 4h per NFR-012" |
Anti-pattern quick reference
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
| Runbook written once at launch, never updated | Drifts from reality, fails exactly when needed most | Review on the same cadence as the SAD it references |
| Tribal knowledge in one person's head | Bus factor of one; incidents stall when they're unavailable | Runbook must be independently executable by any on-call engineer |
| Blame-focused postmortem | Suppresses honest reporting, hides the real root cause | Blameless format — focus on systems and process, not people |
| Action items with no owner | Nothing gets fixed | Require an owner and due date, tracked like any other work item |
| Alerts with no corresponding runbook entry | On-call improvises mid-incident | Every alert must map to a documented procedure |
| Postmortem findings never reach the SAD/ADR | Same incident class recurs | Route architecture-relevant lessons through Change Management |
Review Workflow
- Confirm the runbook matches the current SAD — not a prior, since-changed architecture.
- Walk every alert and confirm it maps to a documented first action.
- Confirm escalation paths and on-call ownership are current, not stale contacts.
- For postmortems: confirm timeline accuracy, root-cause depth (not just the symptom), and that every action item has an owner and due date.
- 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
In this repository91 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- goSkill
- json-standardsSkill
- pythonSkill
- rabbitmqSkill
- rSkill
- rustSkill
- code-standardsSkill
- software-architectureSkill
- swiftSkill
- typescript-code-standardsSkill
- architecture-documentation-and-decision-recordsSkill
- business-requirements-standardsSkill
- developer-handoff-standardsSkill
- development-planning-standardsSkill
- document-writer-reviewerSkill
- feature-planning-standardsSkill
- functional-specification-standardsSkill
- non-functional-requirements-standardsSkill
- product-requirements-standardsSkill
- documentationSkill
- solution-architecture-standardsSkill
- technical-requirements-standardsSkill
- documenting-codeSkill
- github-circleci-standardsSkill
- graphifySkill
- puml-diagramsSkill
- software-architecture-progressionSkill
- testingSkill
- software-test-specificationSkill
- zeno-councilSkill
- zeno-debugSkill
- zeno-insightSkill
- zenoSkill
- zeno-stackSkill
- zeno-accessibilitySkill
- zeno-angular-developerSkill
- zeno-api-designSkill
- zeno-browser-qaSkill
- zeno-build-resolverSkill
- zeno-codebase-onboardingSkill
- zeno-code-tourSkill
- zeno-comment-analysisSkill
- zeno-config-gcSkill
- zeno-context-budgetSkill
- zeno-context-compactionSkill
- zeno-cost-reportSkill
- zeno-database-migrationsSkill
- zeno-deep-researchSkill
- zeno-deployment-patternsSkill
- zeno-design-systemSkill
- zeno-docker-patternsSkill
- zeno-e2e-testingSkill
- zeno-error-handlingSkill
- zeno-find-skillsSkill
- zeno-frontend-designSkill
- zeno-github-opsSkill
- zeno-git-workflowSkill
- zeno-harness-optimizerSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

