CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

langfuse-incident-runbook

Troubleshoot and respond to Langfuse-related incidents and outages. Use when experiencing Langfuse outages, debugging production issues, or responding to LLM observability incidents. Trigger with phrases like "langfuse incident", "langfuse outage", "langfuse down", "langfuse production issue", "langfuse troubleshoot".

68

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

This is a strong incident runbook with highly actionable, executable code examples and a clear multi-step workflow with validation checkpoints. Its main weakness is that it's somewhat long for a single file — the detailed resolution procedures and redundant error handling table could be better organized through progressive disclosure. The severity classification and escalation paths add genuine operational value.

Suggestions

Remove or consolidate the final 'Error Handling' table, which largely duplicates the symptom/action mapping in Step 2 and the procedures in Step 4.

Consider splitting detailed resolution procedures (A, B, C) into a separate PROCEDURES.md file, keeping only the symptom-to-procedure mapping in the main runbook.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Generally efficient with good use of tables and code blocks, but some redundancy exists (e.g., the Error Handling table at the end largely repeats information from Step 2's symptom table and Step 4's procedures). The severity classification table and escalation path are useful additions that earn their tokens, but the overall document could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Excellent executable code throughout — bash triage scripts, TypeScript configuration snippets, docker commands, and verification scripts are all copy-paste ready with concrete values. The symptom-to-action mapping tables provide specific, immediately actionable guidance.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear 6-step sequential workflow from initial assessment through post-incident review. Includes explicit validation checkpoints (Step 5 post-incident verification with pass/fail logic), feedback loops (Step 4 debugging procedures), and time-boxed triage (2 minutes). The escalation path with time thresholds adds further clarity.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well-structured with clear headers and logical sections, but it's a fairly long monolithic document with no bundle files to offload detailed procedures. The common resolution procedures (A, B, C) and the post-incident review template could be split into separate referenced files to keep the main runbook scannable.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

89%

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 a well-structured skill description with excellent trigger term coverage and clear 'what/when' guidance. Its main weakness is that the capability description could be more specific about the concrete actions taken during incident response. The explicit trigger phrases and narrow domain focus make it highly distinctive and easy for Claude to select appropriately.

Suggestions

Add more specific concrete actions to improve specificity, e.g., 'check Langfuse service health, analyze error logs, identify root causes, verify API connectivity, and guide incident escalation'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (Langfuse incidents/outages) and some actions (troubleshoot, respond, debug), but doesn't list multiple specific concrete actions like 'check service health', 'analyze error logs', 'restart services', or 'escalate to on-call'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Clearly answers both 'what' (troubleshoot and respond to Langfuse-related incidents and outages) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with scenarios, plus a 'Trigger with phrases' section listing specific trigger terms).

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including 'langfuse incident', 'langfuse outage', 'langfuse down', 'langfuse production issue', 'langfuse troubleshoot', plus broader terms like 'LLM observability incidents'. These are phrases users would naturally say.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Highly distinctive due to the specific product name 'Langfuse' and the narrow focus on incident response/outages. Very unlikely to conflict with other skills given the specific domain and trigger terms.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Validation

81%

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

Validation9 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

allowed_tools_field

'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s)

Warning

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

9

/

11

Passed

Repository
jeremylongshore/claude-code-plugins-plus-skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.