Governed Job Launcher

Prerequisites

Required MCP Servers:

• aap-mcp-job-management - Job launch, monitoring, events, relaunch

Verification: Run the aap-mcp-validator skill with aap-mcp-job-management before proceeding.

IMPORTANT: This skill assumes the execution-risk-analyzer skill has already been executed and its risk assessment is available. Do NOT launch jobs without prior risk analysis for CRITICAL or HIGH risk targets.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

• After execution-risk-analyzer has completed risk assessment
• Risk level has been determined and governance controls are known
• User has been informed of risk and is ready to proceed

Do NOT use when:

• Risk analysis hasn't been performed yet (run execution-risk-analyzer first)
• Troubleshooting a failed job (use job-failure-analyzer skill)
• Assessing platform readiness (use governance-readiness-assessor skill)

Workflow

Step 1: Consult Execution Governance Documentation

CRITICAL: Document consultation MUST happen BEFORE any MCP tool invocations.

Document Consultation (REQUIRED - Execute FIRST):

1. Action: Read execution-governance.md using the Read tool to understand check mode execution, interpretation, phased rollout, and rollback patterns
2. Output to user: "I consulted execution-governance.md to understand Red Hat's check mode behavior, rollback patterns, and phased rollout strategy."

Step 2: Adapt Execution Strategy Based on Risk Signals

Before launching, incorporate the operational signals from the execution-risk-analyzer skill's report. The launcher adapts its behavior based on what was discovered:

2a. If risk analyzer flagged recent failures:

• Present the failure context to the user before proceeding: "The risk analyzer found that the last [N] runs of this template failed. Would you like to investigate the most recent failure first (using forensic-troubleshooter), or proceed with the execution?"
• If user wants to investigate → hand off to forensic-troubleshooter skill
• If user wants to proceed → continue with elevated caution

2b. If risk analyzer flagged check mode not overridable (ask_job_type_on_launch: false):

• Cannot enforce check mode at launch time
• Inform user: "This template does not allow job_type override. Check mode cannot be enforced without modifying the template. Proceeding directly to full execution with extra scrutiny."
• For CRITICAL risk: Recommend modifying the template first. If user declines, proceed but document the governance exception.

2c. If risk analyzer flagged shell/command modules:

• Elevate the check mode warning from generic to specific in Step 4: "This playbook uses [X] shell/command tasks that check mode will SKIP. Only [Y] of [Z] total tasks were validated in this dry run."

2d. If risk analyzer flagged no notifications:

• After successful execution, proactively recommend: "This template has no failure notifications. Per Red Hat's Ch. 25, consider adding failure notifications now that the execution succeeded."

2e. If risk analyzer flagged standalone template (no workflow):

• For CRITICAL risk: Recommend wrapping in a workflow before proceeding. If user declines, proceed but document the governance exception.

Step 3: Execute Based on Risk Level

For CRITICAL / HIGH Risk: Check Mode First

MCP Tool: job_templates_launch_create (from aap-mcp-job-management) Parameters:

• id: "<template_id>"
• requestBody:
  • job_type: "check"
  • diff_mode: true
  • extra_vars: (from user/template, if any)
  • limit: (if scoping to specific hosts)

Per Red Hat's Job Templates documentation (Ch. 9): The job_type field supports "check" mode for dry-run execution, and diff_mode shows what would change.

If check mode not overridable (from Step 2b): Skip directly to full execution with elevated human-in-the-loop controls.

For MEDIUM Risk: Direct with Confirmation

Ask user for confirmation, then launch directly with job_type: "run".

For LOW Risk: Direct Execution

Launch with job_type: "run" directly (user has already been informed by risk analyzer).

Step 4: Monitor Job Progress

Poll job status until completion:

MCP Tool: jobs_retrieve (from aap-mcp-job-management) Parameters:

• id: "<job_id>"

Poll every few seconds. Status values: pending, waiting, running, successful, failed, error, canceled.

Step 5: Interpret Check Mode Results (CRITICAL/HIGH only)

After check mode completes, retrieve results:

MCP Tool: jobs_job_host_summaries_list (from aap-mcp-job-management) Parameters:

• id: "<check_mode_job_id>"

MCP Tool: jobs_job_events_list (from aap-mcp-job-management) Parameters:

• id: "<check_mode_job_id>"
• page_size: 100

Interpretation (per execution-governance.md):

Shell/command module warning (adapted based on risk analyzer findings):

• If risk analyzer detected shell/command modules (Step 2c): Use the specific warning with task counts: "This playbook uses [X] shell/command tasks (identified from previous run analysis). These [X] tasks were SKIPPED in check mode and were NOT validated. Only [Y] of [Z] total tasks were covered by this dry run."
• If no prior run data available: Use generic warning: "Tasks using shell/command modules are skipped in check mode per Ansible documentation and were NOT validated."

Output to user:

## Check Mode Results — Job #[job_id]

**Status**: [successful/failed]
**Dry-Run Coverage**: [Y] of [Z] tasks validated ([percentage]%) [only if module data available from risk analyzer]

### Host Summary
| Host | OK | Changed | Failed | Unreachable | Skipped |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [host] | [ok] | [changed] | [failures] | [dark] | [skipped] |

### Check Mode Findings
- [X] tasks would make changes
- [Y] tasks would fail
- [Z] tasks were skipped (shell/command — NOT validated)

### Operational Context [from risk analyzer signals]
- Job History: [last run status — clear/failed/first run]
- Notifications: [configured/not configured — silent failures if not]
- Workflow: [wrapped/standalone]

### Recommendation
[Based on results AND operational context: proceed / stop / investigate]

⚠️ [Specific or generic check mode warning based on available data]

**Proceed with full execution?** (yes/no)

Step 6: Full Execution (After Approval)

Standard Execution (HIGH risk or below)

MCP Tool: job_templates_launch_create (from aap-mcp-job-management) Parameters:

• id: "<template_id>"
• requestBody:
  • job_type: "run"
  • extra_vars: (same as check mode)

Phased Rollout (CRITICAL risk)

Per execution-governance.md, CRITICAL risk executions use phased rollout:

Phase 1 - Canary:

{
  "id": "<template_id>",
  "requestBody": {
    "job_type": "run",
    "limit": "<canary_host>"
  }
}

Verify canary success via jobs_job_host_summaries_list. If failures = 0, proceed.

Phase 2 - Expanded (25%):

{
  "id": "<template_id>",
  "requestBody": {
    "job_type": "run",
    "limit": "<group>[0:25%]"
  }
}

Verify. If failures = 0, proceed.

Phase 3 - Full Rollout:

{
  "id": "<template_id>",
  "requestBody": {
    "job_type": "run"
  }
}

Health gate between phases: Check jobs_job_host_summaries_list for failures = 0 before proceeding to next phase. If ANY failures, STOP and report.

Step 7: Post-Execution Summary

MCP Tool: jobs_job_host_summaries_list (from aap-mcp-job-management) Parameters:

• id: "<final_job_id>"

Report only hosts with changed > 0 or failures > 0:

## Execution Summary — Job #[job_id]

**Status**: [successful/failed]
**Elapsed**: [time]

### Changed Hosts
| Host | Changed | Failed |
|---|---|---|
| [host] | [changed] | [failures] |

### Result
[X] hosts changed, [Y] hosts failed, [Z] hosts unchanged.

### Proactive Recommendations [based on risk analyzer signals]
[If no notifications were flagged]: "Per Red Hat's Ch. 25, this template has no failure notifications. Now that the execution succeeded, consider adding notifications for future runs."
[If standalone template flagged]: "This template ran outside a workflow. For ongoing production use, consider wrapping it in a workflow with approval nodes."

Step 8: Rollback (If Failure)

If the job fails, offer rollback options per execution-governance.md:

Option 1 - Relaunch on failed hosts:

MCP Tool: jobs_relaunch_create (from aap-mcp-job-management) Parameters:

• id: "<failed_job_id>"
• requestBody:
  • hosts: "failed"
  • credential_passwords: {}

Option 2 - Rollback playbook: Launch a different template (if a rollback template exists).

Option 3 - Revert to previous job: Relaunch the last successful job.

Dependencies

Required MCP Servers

• aap-mcp-job-management - All job operations

Required MCP Tools

• job_templates_launch_create (from job-management) - Launch jobs
• jobs_retrieve (from job-management) - Monitor progress
• jobs_job_events_list (from job-management) - Event details
• jobs_job_host_summaries_list (from job-management) - Host summaries
• jobs_relaunch_create (from job-management) - Rollback/relaunch

Related Skills

• execution-risk-analyzer - MUST run before this skill
• aap-mcp-validator - Prerequisite validation
• execution-summary - Audit trail after launch

Reference Documentation

• execution-governance.md - Check mode, rollback, phased rollout patterns

Critical: Human-in-the-Loop Requirements

This skill requires explicit user confirmation at the following steps:

1. Before Full Execution (CRITICAL/HIGH risk)

   • Display check mode results
   • Ask: "Check mode passed. Proceed with full execution?"
   • Wait for explicit "yes" or "proceed"

2. Between Rollout Phases (CRITICAL risk)

   • Display phase results
   • Ask: "Phase [N] succeeded on [X] hosts. Proceed to Phase [N+1]?"
   • Wait for confirmation

3. Before Rollback

   • Display failure summary
   • Ask: "Job failed on [X] hosts. Choose rollback option: (1) Relaunch on failed hosts, (2) Run rollback playbook, (3) Manual investigation"
   • Wait for user choice

Never execute without approval for CRITICAL or HIGH risk targets.

Example Usage

User: "Execute the security patch on production" (after risk analyzer identified CRITICAL risk with signals)

Agent:

1. Reads execution-governance.md
2. Adapts: Risk analyzer flagged last run failed → asks "Last run of this template failed. Investigate first or proceed?"
3. User says proceed → launches check mode: job_type: "check", diff_mode: true
4. Adapts: Risk analyzer detected 2 shell tasks → reports: "Dry-run coverage: 4 of 6 tasks validated (67%). 2 shell/command tasks were SKIPPED."
5. Reports: "Check mode completed. 1 host would have 3 changes, 1 failure detected (dnf package not found). Per Ansible check mode docs, dnf contacts repos in check mode -- this failure is real."
6. Recommends: "STOP -- check mode detected a failure. Combined with the previous run failure, this template likely has a persistent issue."
7. Proactive: "Additionally, this template has no failure notifications (per Ch. 25) and runs standalone outside a workflow (per Ch. 9). Consider addressing these governance gaps."