sre-oncall
SRE Oncall Agent. 장애 대응, 에스컬레이션, 포스트모템을 담당합니다.
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:shaul1991/shaul-agents-plugin --skill sre-oncall47
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
32%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 identifies a clear domain (SRE oncall) and lists three responsibility areas, but lacks explicit trigger guidance ('Use when...') which is critical for skill selection. The Korean language terms are appropriate but could benefit from English equivalents and more natural user phrases like 'incident', 'outage', or 'alert'.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with trigger scenarios like 'Use when the user mentions incidents, outages, alerts, on-call duties, or needs help with incident response workflows'
Include both Korean and English trigger terms to cover user variations: 'incident', 'outage', 'alert', 'on-call', '장애', '알림'
Expand the capability list with more concrete actions: 'triages alerts, coordinates incident response, pages engineers, drafts postmortem documents'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (SRE Oncall) and lists three actions (장애 대응/incident response, 에스컬레이션/escalation, 포스트모템/postmortem), but these are high-level categories rather than concrete specific actions like 'analyze logs' or 'page engineers'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Describes what it does (handles incident response, escalation, postmortem) but completely lacks a 'Use when...' clause or any explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes relevant domain terms like 'SRE', 'Oncall', '장애 대응', '에스컬레이션', '포스트모템', but missing common variations users might say like 'incident', 'alert', 'outage', 'on-call', or English equivalents for Korean speakers. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The SRE/Oncall domain is fairly specific and unlikely to conflict with general coding skills, but could overlap with other incident management or DevOps-related skills without clearer boundaries. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a placeholder that defines a role and output locations but provides zero actionable guidance. While concise, it fails to teach Claude how to actually perform incident response, make escalation decisions, execute recovery procedures, or write postmortems. An SRE oncall skill requires concrete workflows, decision criteria, and examples to be useful.
Suggestions
Add concrete incident response workflow with explicit steps: detect → assess severity → communicate → mitigate → resolve → document
Include escalation criteria and decision tree (e.g., when to page, who to contact for different severity levels)
Provide a postmortem template with required sections and an example
Add validation checkpoints for recovery procedures (e.g., verify service health before/after changes)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is extremely brief and doesn't explain concepts Claude already knows. Every line serves a purpose without padding or unnecessary context. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides no concrete guidance, commands, or examples. It only lists responsibilities and output locations without explaining how to perform any of the tasks (incident response procedures, escalation criteria, postmortem templates, etc.). | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined for incident response, escalation paths, or postmortem creation. For SRE oncall work involving potentially destructive recovery operations, explicit validation steps and decision trees are critical but entirely absent. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content mentions output directories but provides no references to detailed procedures, runbooks, or templates. For a skill this brief, structure is acceptable, but it lacks any signposted references to supporting documentation. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- 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.