OB

observability

Helps define what metrics, logs, and alerts are necessary to maintain system visibility and production health.

Install

mkdir -p .claude/skills/observability-proyecto26 && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/19393" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/observability-proyecto26 && rm skill.zip

Installs to .claude/skills/observability-proyecto26

Activation

This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.

This skill should be used when the user asks about "observability" or "monitoring", what "metrics, logs, and traces" to collect, "health checks" (liveness/readiness), "alerting" or "on-call", "SLO/SLI" or "error budgets", the "RED" or "USE" method, "dashboards", or names a tool like "Prometheus", "Grafana", or "Datadog". Use it whenever a design has no answer to "how would we know this is broken?" or "what do we alert on?" — i.e. any time failure would be invisible until users complain, even if the user doesn't say "observability".
537 chars✓ has a “when” triggerlonger than Claude Code's old 250-char listing cap (fine on current versions)
Advanced

Key capabilities

  • Define system metrics using RED and USE methods
  • Configure liveness and readiness health checks
  • Establish SLOs and error budgets
  • Design alerting strategies based on symptoms
  • Implement request tracing across services

How it works

The skill guides the selection of measurement frames like RED for services and USE for resources, and defines health check behaviors to ensure system visibility and debuggability.

Inputs & outputs

You give it
System design and performance requirements
You get back
Observability strategy and monitoring configuration

When to use observability

  • Define system metrics
  • Set up alerting strategy
  • Determine SLO/SLI
  • Design dashboard requirements

About this skill

Observability

Decide what to measure so a system can be seen, alerted on, and debugged in production. Getting this wrong is failure mode #6 — ignoring failure: a design that works on the whiteboard but goes dark under load, where the first signal of an outage is a user complaint instead of a page.

When to reach for this

Any production design needs an answer to "how would we know this broke, and how fast?" Reach for this when defining what the system measures, what pages a human, what an acceptable level of service is (SLO), or how a request is traced across services. It is the design move that makes every other block's stress section real — you cannot mitigate a thundering herd or a hot shard you can't see.

When NOT to

Do not build a full metrics-logs-traces stack for a prototype or an internal tool with no users to disappoint (YAGNI) — a health check and error logging are enough. Do not invent SLOs nobody will defend, or wire alerts before knowing the symptom that matters; an alert with no owner and no runbook is noise that trains the team to ignore pages. This skill owns what to measure and alert on; the high-volume log pipeline (collect → buffer → ship → index → retain) lives in distributed-logging — summarize and link, don't rebuild it here.

Clarify first

  • What is "healthy" from a user's view? The symptom that defines a bad experience (slow checkout, failed upload) — alerts target this, not CPU.
  • SLO target and window? e.g. 99.9% of requests < 300 ms over 30 days. This sets the error budget and the alert thresholds. (→ back-of-the-envelope for the nines.)
  • Request volume and cardinality? QPS drives metric/trace sample rates; high-cardinality labels (user ID, URL) blow up a metrics store.
  • Is this request-driven or resource-driven? Picks RED (services) vs USE (CPU/disk/queues) as the measurement frame.
  • Multi-service request path? If a request crosses services, tracing earns its keep; a single service may not need it yet.

The options

The three pillars (complementary, not either/or):

  • Metrics — cheap numeric time series (counters, gauges, histograms). Use for dashboards, trend analysis, and alerting — the always-on signal.
  • Logs — discrete events with context. Use for debugging the specific failure after an alert fires. (The pipeline that moves them is distributed-logging.)
  • Traces — one request's journey across services with timing per hop. Use to find which service or dependency is the latency/error source.

What to measure (pick a frame per component):

  • RED (request-driven services): Rate, Errors, Duration. Use for APIs, web tiers, anything serving requests.
  • USE (resources): Utilization, Saturation, Errors. Use for CPU, memory, disk, connection pools, queues.
  • Four golden signals (latency, traffic, errors, saturation) — the superset; use as the default service dashboard.

Health checks (the signal, consumed by load-balancing/orchestrator):

  • Liveness — is the process alive / not deadlocked? Failure ⇒ restart. Keep it cheap; don't check dependencies. Use to recover stuck processes.
  • Readiness — can this instance serve traffic now (deps reachable, warmup done)? Failure ⇒ pull from rotation, don't restart. Use to gate cold/struggling instances.

Alerting:

  • Symptom-based (SLO burn) — page when the user-facing SLO is at risk. Use as the default; it is actionable and low-noise.
  • Cause-based (resource thresholds) — ticket/warn on CPU, disk, saturation. Use for capacity planning, not paging.

Trade-offs

OptionWhat it solvesWhat it worsensChange it when
MetricsCheap, always-on alerting + trendsNo per-request detail; high-cardinality labels explode storage/costYou need to debug a specific request → add traces/logs
LogsRich context for debugging an incidentVolume + cost; needs the distributed-logging pipeline to scaleVolume is unmanageable → sample, or shift detail to metrics
TracesPinpoints the slow/failing hop across servicesInstrumentation effort; sampling needed at high QPSSingle-service or low volume → defer; metrics suffice
REDRight frame for request servicesMisses resource exhaustion that hasn't yet hurt requestsComponent is a resource (queue, disk) → use USE
USECatches saturation before it hurts usersResource-centric, not user-centric; can be noisyAlerting on it → switch to symptom/SLO-based
Liveness checkRecovers deadlocked processesToo aggressive ⇒ restart loops, mask real bugsRestarts hide a crash-loop → fix readiness/root cause
Readiness checkKeeps cold/broken instances out of rotationFlapping if it checks flaky deps ⇒ capacity yo-yoAll instances fail readiness together → it's a dep outage
SLO/error budgetTies alerting + release pace to user painEffort to define + defend; wrong SLO misleadsBudget never burns (too loose) or always burns (too tight)
Symptom alertingLow-noise, actionable pagesSlightly slower to localize root causeNeed faster localization → add cause-based tickets (not pages)

Behavior under stress

Observability is most needed exactly when it's most likely to break or mislead.

  • The monitoring amplifies the outage. Synchronous logging on the request path turns a slow log backend into request latency. Per-request trace export with no sampling melts the collector under a spike. Keep telemetry async and sampled so it degrades the signal, never the service.
  • Health-check stampede. Aggressive liveness probes restart instances that are merely slow, and readiness flaps yank capacity mid-spike — making the spike worse. The gating/recovery behavior is owned by load-balancing and resilience-failure; this block owns defining a stable signal (sane thresholds, consecutive-failure counts, deps in readiness not liveness).
  • Cardinality blow-up. A label like user_id or raw URL multiplies time series into the millions and OOMs the metrics store under load — drop or bucket high-cardinality dimensions.
  • Alert storm. One root cause (a DB outage) fires fifty correlated alerts; the on-call drowns. Alert on the user-facing symptom; group/inhibit downstream alerts.
  • Blind spot on recovery. After an incident, dashboards must show whether the fix worked and whether recovery traffic is overwhelming a cold tier.

Monitor: the four golden signals per service (rate, errors, latency p50/p95/p99, saturation), SLO error-budget burn rate, healthy-host count and probe flap rate, and the telemetry pipeline's own lag/drop rate (watch the watcher).

How to apply

  1. Clarify the inputs — pin the user-facing symptom, the SLO target + window, request volume/cardinality, and whether the path is multi-service (see Clarify first). No SLO yet? Define the symptom first; the number follows.
  2. Pick the pillars and frame from the trade-off table — metrics for alerting always; RED for services and USE for resources; add traces only when a request crosses services or volume justifies it.
  3. Set the key knobs — define liveness vs readiness endpoints (deps in readiness, not liveness), consecutive-failure thresholds, trace sample rate, and the SLO + error-budget policy. Drop high-cardinality labels up front.
  4. Stress-test the choice — walk Behavior under stress: confirm telemetry is async/sampled, probes won't stampede, cardinality is bounded, and alerts group by root cause so one outage isn't fifty pages.
  5. Size it with numbers — sanity-check metric series count and retention, trace/log sample volume against the QPS, and that the SLO's nines match the architecture's redundancy (→ Numbers that matter).
  6. Pick a provider — default to the generic recipe; open a provider file only if the user named a cloud (see Choosing a provider).

Dos and don'ts

Do

  • Alert on user-facing symptoms (SLO burn), and make every page actionable with a runbook.
  • Put dependency checks in readiness and keep liveness cheap and dependency-free.
  • Emit telemetry asynchronously and sampled so it never adds latency or melts the collector.
  • Define an SLO + error budget you will actually defend, and tie release pace to it.
  • Standardize a per-service dashboard on the four golden signals.

Don't

  • Don't page on causes (CPU > 80%) — ticket those; pages are for user pain.
  • Don't use high-cardinality labels (user ID, raw URL) as metric dimensions.
  • Don't check downstream dependencies in liveness — you'll restart-loop the fleet.
  • Don't build a full stack for a prototype, or wire alerts no one owns (YAGNI / alert fatigue).
  • Don't reimplement the log pipeline here — that's distributed-logging.

Numbers that matter

The SLO sets everything else: 99.9% over 30 days allows ~43 minutes of budget; if the architecture's redundancy can't deliver those nines, the SLO is fiction (→ back-of-the-envelope for the availability-nines table). Alert on p95/p99, not averages — averages hide tail pain. Sample traces (often 1–10% at high QPS) so cost scales sub-linearly with traffic. Watch metric cardinality (series ≈ product of label values): one unbounded label can mean millions of series. Don't restate the latency/QPS/nines tables — they live in back-of-the-envelope.

Interface sketch

Telemetry has contracts worth pinning down. A metric: name + label set + type (http_requests_total{service,method,status} counter) — labels are low-cardinality. A health endpoint: GET /livez → 200/503 (process only), GET /readyz → 200/503 (deps + warmup), with version/build info in the body for debugging. A trace context: a trace_id + span_id propagated on every inbound/outbound call (e.g. W3C traceparent header) so traces and logs correlate.

Choosing a provider

Default to th


Content truncated.

When not to use it

  • Building full metrics-logs-traces stacks for prototypes
  • Creating SLOs that nobody will defend
  • Wiring alerts without knowing the relevant symptoms

Limitations

  • High-cardinality labels can increase storage costs
  • Liveness checks can cause restart loops if configured too aggressively
  • Readiness checks can cause flapping if they depend on flaky services

How it compares

This approach prioritizes symptom-based alerting and SLOs over generic resource monitoring, focusing on user-facing health rather than just infrastructure metrics.

Compared to similar skills

observability side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.

SkillInstallsUpdatedSafetyDifficulty
observability (this skill)01moNo flagsAdvanced
observability-engineer123moNo flagsAdvanced
prometheus-configuration62moReviewAdvanced
appinsights-instrumentation66moReviewBeginner

Try saying

Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.

You might also like

observability-engineer

sickn33

Build production-ready monitoring, logging, and tracing systems. Implements comprehensive observability strategies, SLI/SLO management, and incident response workflows. Use PROACTIVELY for monitoring infrastructure, performance optimization, or production reliability.

1242

prometheus-configuration

wshobson

Set up Prometheus for comprehensive metric collection, storage, and monitoring of infrastructure and applications. Use when implementing metrics collection, setting up monitoring infrastructure, or configuring alerting systems.

645

appinsights-instrumentation

github

Instrument a webapp to send useful telemetry data to Azure App Insights

66

cloudwatch

itsmostafa

AWS CloudWatch monitoring for logs, metrics, alarms, and dashboards. Use when setting up monitoring, creating alarms, querying logs with Insights, configuring metric filters, building dashboards, or troubleshooting application issues.

12

devops-troubleshooter

sickn33

Expert DevOps troubleshooter specializing in rapid incident response, advanced debugging, and modern observability. Masters log analysis, distributed tracing, Kubernetes debugging, performance optimization, and root cause analysis. Handles production outages, system reliability, and preventive monitoring. Use PROACTIVELY for debugging, incident response, or system troubleshooting.

12

observability-monitoring-monitor-setup

sickn33

You are a monitoring and observability expert specializing in implementing comprehensive monitoring solutions. Set up metrics collection, distributed tracing, log aggregation, and create insightful da

12

Search skills

Search the agent skills registry