本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

slo-architect

Use when defining, reviewing, or operating SLOs/SLIs/error budgets. Triggers on "define an SLO", "what should our SLO be", "error budget", "burn rate", "SLI", "service level objective", "Google SRE workbook", "multi-window burn-rate alert", or any reliability-target question. Ships SLO designer, error-budget calculator with multi-window burn-rate thresholds, and SLO reviewer that catches the common bugs (target too aggressive, window too short, conflicting SLOs, no SLI definition). 4 references on SLO principles + SLI design + error budget math + composition with feature-flags-architect/chaos-engineering/kubernetes-operator. NOT a generic observability skill — specifically the SLO discipline.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(10)

  • SKILL.md10.3 KB
  • assets/error_budget_policy.md2.6 KB
  • assets/slo_template.yaml2.2 KB
  • references/composition.md5.1 KB
  • references/error_budget.md4.5 KB
  • references/sli_design.md5.3 KB
  • references/slo_principles.md5.2 KB
  • scripts/error_budget_calculator.py5.5 KB
  • scripts/slo_designer.py6.5 KB
  • scripts/slo_review.py5.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

SLO Architect

Define SLOs that mean something. Most "SLOs" in the wild are arbitrary numbers no one believes — 99.9% on every endpoint, no SLI definition, no error budget, no policy for what happens when budget burns. This skill enforces the discipline from Google's SRE Workbook: pick the right SLI, set a target users actually care about, calculate the error budget, wire multi-window burn-rate alerts, and have a written policy for when budget runs out.

When to use

  • Defining a new SLO for a service or feature
  • Reviewing existing SLOs for common bugs
  • Picking the right SLI (event-based vs time-window based vs request-based)
  • Computing error budgets and burn-rate alert thresholds
  • Tying SLOs to existing controls — feature flags abort, chaos blast radius, operator capability levels

When NOT to use

  • General observability strategy (metrics + logs + traces) → use observability-designer
  • Customer-facing SLAs with legal teeth → that's contract drafting, not engineering
  • Performance load testing (capacity, not reliability) → use performance-profiler
  • Active incident response → use incident-response

Core principle: an SLO is a promise about user experience

SLI  ⟶  measurable signal of user-perceived health (e.g., HTTP 2xx rate)
SLO  ⟶  target for the SLI over a window (e.g., 99.9% over 30 days)
SLA  ⟶  customer-facing commitment with consequences (separate concern)
EB   ⟶  error budget: 100% − SLO target = how much "bad" you can spend
BR   ⟶  burn rate: how fast you're consuming the error budget

The four cardinal mistakes:

  1. Target too high (99.99%+ on services that can't support it) — every minor blip violates SLO; alerts become noise.
  2. Wrong SLI (CPU usage as proxy for user experience) — system can be "green" while users suffer.
  3. No error budget policy — burning budget means nothing if there's no agreed action.
  4. Single-window burn-rate alert — either too noisy (page on a 5-min spike) or too slow (notice budget exhausted after the fact).

The 3 tools below catch each of these.

Quick start

SKILL=engineering/slo-architect/skills/slo-architect

# 1. Design an SLO
python "$SKILL/scripts/slo_designer.py" \
  --service checkout-svc \
  --sli-type request-success-rate \
  --target 99.9 \
  --window-days 30

# 2. Compute error budget + multi-window burn-rate alerts
python "$SKILL/scripts/error_budget_calculator.py" \
  --target 99.9 --window-days 30

# 3. Review existing SLO definitions for common bugs
python "$SKILL/scripts/slo_review.py" --slo-doc docs/slos/

The 3 Python tools

All stdlib-only.

slo_designer.py

Generates a structured SLO definition with required fields. Refuses to render if any required field is missing (exit 1).

python scripts/slo_designer.py \
  --service checkout-svc \
  --sli-type request-success-rate \
  --target 99.9 \
  --window-days 30 \
  --owner team-checkout

SLI types supported:

  • request-success-rate — (total_requests - bad_requests) / total_requests
  • request-latency — count(requests < threshold) / total_requests
  • availability-time — (window - downtime) / window
  • data-freshness — count(data_age < threshold) / total_data_points
  • correctness — count(correct_outputs) / total_outputs

Output is markdown by default with all required fields filled or marked <must define>. JSON output (--format json) is consumed by slo_review.py.

error_budget_calculator.py

Given target availability + window, computes:

  • Allowed downtime in the window
  • Multi-window burn-rate thresholds per Google SRE Workbook (Chapter 5):
    • Fast burn — page if 2% of monthly budget consumed in 1 hour
    • Slow burn — page if 10% consumed in 6 hours, ticket if 10% in 3 days
  • Recommended alerting rules (PromQL-shaped output)
python scripts/error_budget_calculator.py --target 99.9 --window-days 30
python scripts/error_budget_calculator.py --target 99.95 --window-days 7 --format json

slo_review.py

Audits a directory of SLO definitions (markdown or JSON) for the common bugs.

python scripts/slo_review.py --slo-doc docs/slos/

Checks:

  • target_too_high: target ≥ 99.99% (sustainable only with massive engineering investment)
  • target_too_low: target ≤ 99.0% (probably wrong SLI; users will notice)
  • window_too_short: window < 7 days (statistical noise dominates)
  • window_too_long: window > 90 days (slow feedback)
  • no_sli_definition: SLI section missing or vague ("everything OK")
  • no_error_budget_policy: no documented action when budget burns
  • cpu_as_sli: CPU/memory used as user-experience proxy (wrong signal)

SLI selection cheatsheet

User experienceSLI typeWhat you measure
"Did the request succeed?"request-success-rate2xx / total
"Was the response fast?"request-latencycount(p99 < threshold) / total
"Was the service up?"availability-time(window - downtime) / window
"Is the data current?"data-freshnesscount(data_age < threshold) / total
"Was the answer correct?"correctnesscount(correct) / total

See references/sli_design.md for examples and anti-patterns.

Error budget math (the basics)

For 99.9% SLO over 30 days:

  • Allowed unavailability: 0.1% × 30 × 24 × 60 = 43.2 minutes
  • 1-hour fast-burn threshold (2% of monthly budget burned): 2% × 43.2 / 60 ≈ 1.44 ratio multiplier
  • 6-hour slow-burn threshold (10% in 6h): 10% × 43.2 / 360 ≈ 0.6 ratio multiplier

error_budget_calculator.py does this math for you and emits ready-to-paste alert rules.

Composition with the rest of the portfolio

This skill explicitly composes with three others:

SkillComposition
feature-flags-architectRollout abort criteria reference SLO burn-rate thresholds
chaos-engineeringBlast-radius calculator already takes monthly error budget as input — define it here
kubernetes-operatorOperator capability L4 (Deep Insights) requires SLOs + Prometheus rules

The error_budget_calculator.py output is in the same shape engineering/skills/chaos-engineering/scripts/blast_radius_calculator.py expects on stdin.

Workflows

Workflow 1: Define a new SLO

1. Pick the user journey to protect (e.g., "checkout completion").
2. Choose SLI type (request-success-rate, latency, availability, freshness, correctness).
3. Define the SLI precisely: numerator/denominator with concrete labels.
4. Pick a target by measuring 30 days of historical SLI value:
     target = floor(p50 of last 30 days × 100) / 100
   This avoids targets the system has never sustained.
5. Pick a window (28 days = 4 calendar weeks, recommended).
6. Run slo_designer.py to render the SLO definition.
7. Run error_budget_calculator.py to get burn-rate alerts.
8. Write the error budget policy (what happens when budget burns).
9. Run slo_review.py — must pass before the SLO is "live".

Workflow 2: Quarterly SLO review

1. For every active SLO, run slo_review.py — fix any FAIL findings.
2. Look at last quarter's data:
   - Was the SLO too easy (never burned budget)? Tighten target.
   - Was it too hard (frequently burned)? Loosen target OR fix the system.
   - Did burn-rate alerts fire usefully (not too noisy, not too late)? Adjust thresholds.
3. Audit error budget policies — were they actually followed when budget burned?
4. Commit revised SLOs; archive old versions with date stamps.

Workflow 3: SLO-driven rollback

1. New deploy starts burning error budget faster than baseline.
2. Burn-rate alert fires (from error_budget_calculator.py thresholds).
3. Auto-rollback via feature flag (kill switch from feature-flags-architect).
4. Postmortem feeds into next SLO revision.

References

  • references/slo_principles.md — SLI vs SLO vs SLA, Google SRE Workbook canon
  • references/sli_design.md — picking the right SLI; 5 types with examples
  • references/error_budget.md — error budget math, burn-rate alerts, budget policy
  • references/composition.md — how SLOs feed feature flags, chaos, operators

Slash command

/slo-design — interactive SLO design wizard that runs all 3 tools.

Asset templates

  • assets/slo_template.yaml — fillable SLO YAML
  • assets/error_budget_policy.md — fillable policy template

Anti-patterns

  • 99.99% on every endpoint — copy-paste SLOs that nobody verified the system can sustain
  • CPU usage as SLI — system metrics aren't user experience
  • Single-window burn-rate alert — too noisy if 5-min, too slow if 30-day
  • No error budget policy — burning budget means nothing without an action
  • SLOs without owners — no one is responsible; they bit-rot
  • SLOs reviewed once a year — system characteristics change faster than that
  • SLAs in the SLO doc — different audience, different stakes; keep them separate
  • SLO target = SLA target — SLO must be tighter (you should beat your contract before customers notice)

Verifiable success

A team using this skill should achieve:

  • 100% of SLOs pass slo_review.py with 0 FAIL findings
  • Every SLO has a documented owner, error budget, burn-rate alerts, and policy
  • Burn-rate alerts fire ≤2 times/month per SLO that's hit (signal, not noise)
  • Mean time to detect SLO violation: <30 min (multi-window burn-rate alerts working)
  • Quarterly SLO review happens every quarter (not annually)

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Accessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

aeo

無料

Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

alirezarezvani のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する