Decision heuristics for interpreting Honeycomb SLO compliance, budget burn rates, and trigger status — what the numbers mean and what action to take, including detecting misconfigured SLIs, deciding when to freeze deploys vs page on-call, and designing burn alert thresholds. Load this skill before calling get_slos or get_triggers. Trigger phrases: "check our SLOs", "are we meeting our SLOs", "which SLOs are healthy", "is the error budget OK", "are any alerts firing", "what's the burn rate", "set up an SLO", "create a trigger", "configure alerts", "set up burn alerts", "check trigger status", "starting on-call", "reliability picture", "should we freeze deploys", "is this SLO misconfigured", "are we within budget", "SLO is broken", "budget is negative", or any request about service level objectives, error budgets, burn rates, or alerting in Honeycomb.
80
100%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is an excellent skill description that clearly articulates specific capabilities (SLO interpretation, burn rate analysis, misconfiguration detection, deploy freeze decisions, alert threshold design), provides comprehensive trigger phrases covering many natural user queries, and is highly distinctive to the Honeycomb SLO/alerting domain. The inclusion of a loading instruction ('Load this skill before calling get_slos or get_triggers') adds useful operational context. The description uses appropriate third-person voice throughout.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: interpreting SLO compliance, budget burn rates, trigger status, detecting misconfigured SLIs, deciding when to freeze deploys vs page on-call, and designing burn alert thresholds. These are highly specific and actionable capabilities. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (decision heuristics for interpreting SLO compliance, burn rates, trigger status, detecting misconfigurations, deciding on deploy freezes, designing alert thresholds) and 'when' (explicit trigger phrases list plus a general catch-all clause, and even a loading instruction 'before calling get_slos or get_triggers'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger phrases including 'check our SLOs', 'is the error budget OK', 'what's the burn rate', 'should we freeze deploys', 'starting on-call', plus broader catch-all terms like 'service level objectives', 'error budgets', 'burn rates', and 'alerting in Honeycomb'. These are phrases users would naturally say. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive — it targets a very specific niche (Honeycomb SLO/SLI interpretation and operational decision-making) with domain-specific terminology like 'burn rate', 'error budget', 'SLI misconfiguration', and 'Honeycomb'. Unlikely to conflict with other skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an excellent skill that efficiently delivers decision heuristics for SLO and trigger management in Honeycomb. It excels at conciseness by using tables and threshold-based decision trees rather than prose explanations, provides highly actionable guidance with concrete SLI expressions and trigger patterns, and structures content well with clear references to deeper materials. The only minor note is that bundle files weren't provided to verify the referenced paths exist, but the structure itself is sound.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is lean and efficient throughout. It avoids explaining what SLOs or triggers are conceptually and jumps straight into decision heuristics, design guidance, and interpretation rules. The comparison table is an excellent use of space. Every section earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete SLI expressions (e.g., `LTE(duration_ms, 500)`), specific budget thresholds with corresponding actions, concrete trigger patterns with exact query shapes, and clear configuration guidance like burn alert exhaustion times. The guidance is specific and directly usable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Interpreting SLO Status' section provides a clear decision tree with explicit thresholds and actions at each level, including escalation to the production-investigation skill when budget is negative. The SLO design process is clearly sequenced (Define SLI → Set Target → Configure Burn Alerts). The misconfiguration detection step (compliance at 0%) serves as a validation checkpoint. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill provides a well-structured overview with clear one-level-deep references to three specific reference files (slo-design-guide.md, trigger-examples.md, alerting-strategy.md) and cross-references to related skills. Content is appropriately split between the overview and detailed reference materials. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
7f27e27
Table of Contents
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.