resilience-reviewer

name	resilience-reviewer
description	Review timeouts, retries, circuit breakers, failover, backpressure, degraded modes, and resilience behavior.
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"}]

Resilience Reviewer

Purpose

Review timeouts, retries, circuit breakers, failover, backpressure, degraded modes, and resilience behavior. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• application resilience decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects application resilience artifacts such as timeout setting, retry policy, circuit breaker, failover design, backpressure mechanism, degraded mode.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as retry storm, missing timeout, failover surprise, unbounded queue, no degraded path, cascading failure.
• 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 application resilience artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as chaos test, load-shed metric, dependency error rate, fallback log, SLO impact, incident history.
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: timeout setting, retry policy, circuit breaker, failover design, backpressure mechanism, degraded mode.
• Risk themes: retry storm, missing timeout, failover surprise, unbounded queue, no degraded path, cascading failure.