| name | waf-assessment |
| description | Assess Azure architectures against Well-Architected Framework (WAF) five pillars - Reliability, Security, Cost Optimization, Operational Excellence, and Performance Efficiency. Provide scores and recommendations. |
| metadata | {"author":"Thomas Thornton","version":"1.0.0","last-updated":"2026-05-19"} |
Well-Architected Framework Assessment Skill
Evaluate Azure architectures against Microsoft's Well-Architected Framework (WAF) five pillars to identify strengths, risks, and improvement opportunities.
When to Use
- Assess existing or proposed Azure architectures
- Validate designs meet WAF best practices
- Identify architectural risks and gaps
- Provide scored assessment with recommendations
- Review before production deployment
Five Pillars Overview
1. Reliability
Ability of the system to recover from failures and continue functioning.
- Focus: Availability, resiliency, disaster recovery, health monitoring
2. Security
Protecting applications and data from threats.
- Focus: Identity, network security, encryption, secrets management
3. Cost Optimization
Managing costs to maximize value delivered.
- Focus: Right-sizing, reserved instances, monitoring, waste elimination
4. Operational Excellence
Operations processes that keep a system running in production.
- Focus: IaC, CI/CD, monitoring, incident response, automation
5. Performance Efficiency
Ability of a system to adapt to changes in load.
- Focus: Scaling, caching, CDN, resource selection, optimization
Assessment Process
Step 1: Analyze Architecture
Review the architecture for each pillar:
Reliability Checklist:
Security Checklist:
Cost Optimization Checklist:
Operational Excellence Checklist:
Performance Efficiency Checklist:
Step 2: Score Each Pillar
Use 0-100 scoring system:
Scoring Criteria:
- 80-100 (Excellent): Meets all best practices, production-ready
- 60-79 (Good): Meets most practices, minor gaps
- 40-59 (Fair): Some practices missing, moderate risk
- 20-39 (Poor): Many gaps, significant improvements needed
- 0-19 (Critical): Major gaps, not production-ready
Step 3: Provide Recommendations
For each identified gap:
- Finding: What's missing or problematic
- Risk: Impact if not addressed
- Recommendation: Specific action to take
- Priority: Critical / High / Medium / Low
- Effort: Hours or days to implement
Assessment Output Format
# Well-Architected Framework Assessment
**Architecture**: [Name]
**Assessment Date**: [Date]
**Overall Score**: [Average of 5 pillars]/100
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences on overall health, key strengths, top risks]
## Pillar Scores
| Pillar | Score | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Reliability | 75/100 | 🟢 Good |
| Security | 65/100 | 🟡 Fair |
| Cost Optimization | 80/100 | 🟢 Good |
| Operational Excellence | 70/100 | 🟡 Fair |
| Performance Efficiency | 85/100 | 🟢 Excellent |
| **Overall** | **75/100** | **🟢 Good** |
---
## 1. Reliability (75/100) - 🟢 Good
### Strengths
Availability Zones configured for App Service and Azure SQL
Health checks implemented with automatic failover
Backup strategy defined (RPO: 1 hour, RTO: 4 hours)
### Gaps & Recommendations
#### Finding #1: No Multi-Region Deployment
**Risk**: Regional outage causes complete service unavailability
**Recommendation**: Implement active-passive multi-region with Azure Front Door
**Priority**: High
**Effort**: 3-5 days
**Implementation**: Deploy secondary region (West US), configure Azure Front Door with priority routing
#### Finding #2: Missing Circuit Breaker Pattern
**Risk**: Cascading failures when dependencies are degraded
**Recommendation**: Implement circuit breaker using Polly library
**Priority**: Medium
**Effort**: 1-2 days
---
## 2. Security (65/100) - 🟡 Fair
### Strengths
Azure AD authentication configured
HTTPS enforced with TLS 1.2
Key Vault used for connection strings
### Gaps & Recommendations
#### Finding #1: Service Principal Used Instead of Managed Identity
**Risk**: Credential rotation required, potential secret exposure
**Recommendation**: Replace service principal with system-assigned managed identity
**Priority**: Critical
**Effort**: 4 hours
**Implementation**:
1. Enable managed identity on App Service
2. Grant RBAC permissions to SQL and Key Vault
3. Remove service principal credentials
#### Finding #2: No Private Endpoints
**Risk**: PaaS services exposed to public internet
**Recommendation**: Implement private endpoints for SQL, Storage, Key Vault
**Priority**: High
**Effort**: 1 day
---
## 3-5. [Remaining Pillars Follow Same Structure]
---
## Priority Roadmap
### Critical (Fix Immediately)
1. Replace service principal with managed identity
2. Implement private endpoints for PaaS services
### High (Next 30 Days)
3. Multi-region deployment (active-passive)
4. Infrastructure as Code implementation
5. Implement comprehensive alerting
### Medium (Next 90 Days)
6. Circuit breaker pattern
7. Reserved instances for predictable workloads
8. Performance testing automation
### Low (Future Enhancements)
9. Chaos engineering tests
10. Additional caching layers
---
## Cost Impact Summary
- **Savings Opportunities**: ~$480/month (right-sizing, reserved instances)
- **Security Enhancements**: +$200/month (private endpoints)
- **Multi-Region**: +$850/month (passive region infrastructure)
- **Net Impact**: +$570/month for significantly improved resilience and security
---
## Conclusion
[Summary of assessment with key takeaways and prioritized next steps]
Tips for Effective Assessments
Be Specific: Reference exact resources and configurations
Quantify Risk: Use concrete examples of potential impact
Actionable Recommendations: Provide implementation steps, not just principles
Prioritize Ruthlessly: Help teams focus on what matters most
Show Business Impact: Connect technical gaps to business risks
Include Quick Wins: Balance strategic improvements with fast fixes
Cost-Aware: Show ROI for recommendations (cost vs benefit)
Avoid: Generic advice, overwhelming lists, missing priorities, theoretical recommendations
