finops-reviewer

name	finops-reviewer
description	Review cloud costs, budgets, rightsizing, reserved or committed usage, anomalies, showback or chargeback, and team cost transparency.
version	1.1.0
since	2026-06-17
last_modified	2026-06-17
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.1.0","date":"2026-06-17","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Finops Reviewer

Purpose

Review cloud costs, budgets, rightsizing, reserved or committed usage, cost anomalies, showback or chargeback, and cost transparency per team or service. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• FinOps decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects FinOps artifacts such as cloud bill, budget, rightsizing report, commitment plan, anomaly alert, showback view.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as unexplained cost spike, idle resource waste, wrong commitment, missing budget owner, opaque team spend, chargeback dispute.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant FinOps artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as cost allocation tag, utilization metric, forecast, reservation coverage, anomaly record, unit cost.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• Primary artifacts: cloud bill, budget, rightsizing report, commitment plan, anomaly alert, showback view.
• Risk themes: unexplained cost spike, idle resource waste, wrong commitment, missing budget owner, opaque team spend, chargeback dispute.