observability-monitoring-slo-implement

You are an SLO (Service Level Objective) expert specializing in implementing reliability standards and error budget-based engineering practices. Design comprehensive SLO frameworks, establish meaningful SLIs, and create monitoring systems that balance reliability with feature velocity.

Quality

44%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/observability-monitoring-slo-implement/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is observability-monitoring-slo-implement in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

Quality

Content

36%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured into clear sections but offers almost no executable guidance — instructions are generic platitudes, there is no sequenced workflow with validation checkpoints, and the single progressive-disclosure reference points to a non-existent bundle file.

Suggestions

Replace the generic Instructions bullets with concrete, actionable SLO guidance: example SLI definitions, error-budget math, and alert-threshold rules the model can apply directly.

Provide a numbered implementation workflow with explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., confirm telemetry availability → draft SLIs → review with stakeholders → validate against historical data).

Either create the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' bundle file or remove the dangling reference, so progressive disclosure resolves to real content.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is short and sectioned, but it repeats the frontmatter description verbatim and the Instructions and Context sections restate generic SLO framing Claude already knows, so it is 'mostly efficient' with clear trimmable padding.	3 / 5
Actionability	Instructions are high-level platitudes ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes', 'Provide actionable steps and verification') with no concrete code, SLI formulas, alert thresholds, or commands; the only concrete pointer is to a playbook file, matching 'minimal concrete guidance'.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Instructions are an unsequenced bullet list rather than a multi-step workflow, and the only validation-related note lives in Safety ('Avoid setting SLOs without stakeholder alignment and data validation'); checkpoints and sequence are effectively absent for a multi-step SLO implementation task.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Sections are clearly organized (Use/Do not use, Context, Instructions, Safety, Resources) and a one-level reference is signaled in Resources, but the referenced file 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' does not exist in the bundle, leaving the disclosure broken.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Description

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description conveys a clear, niche capability set around SLO/SLI implementation, but its second-person voice and missing explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause hold it to mid-range scores across specificity, trigger quality, and completeness.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third-person imperative voice ('Designs SLO frameworks, establishes SLIs, builds monitoring systems') to recover the specificity penalty and match skill-description conventions.

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming natural trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when defining SLOs/SLIs, error budgets, or reliability targets for services').

Include common synonyms and file-format cues users might say (e.g., 'reliability targets', 'service-level agreements', 'SLA') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists three concrete actions ('Design comprehensive SLO frameworks, establish meaningful SLIs, and create monitoring systems'), which would rate a 4, but the second-person voice ('You are an SLO expert... Design...') triggers the -1 voice penalty, bringing it to 3.	3 / 5
Completeness	It clearly states what the skill does (design SLO frameworks, establish SLIs, build monitoring) but provides no 'when' clause — there is no 'Use when...' trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Domain keywords like 'SLO', 'SLI', 'error budget', and 'reliability' are present and reasonably natural, but common synonyms and explicit user-facing trigger phrasing are missing, so it lands at the 'some relevant keywords' anchor rather than strong coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The SLO/error-budget/SLI niche is clearly distinct from most skills, with only minor overlap risk against general monitoring or observability skills, matching the 'mostly distinct' anchor.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/observability-monitoring-slo-implement/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 3 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.