Reviewing a Go/TS service's operational risk by mapping integration failure points (external HTTP calls, queue consumers, outbound webhooks), simulating stuck intermediate states for each entity in a flow, and classifying each scenario into tiers — then emitting operational runbooks (Tier 2) or gap specs (Tier 3). Two entry modes: explore an existing codebase, or read a dev-cycle plan.md and epic artifacts. Use before production hardening, incident retros, or at dev-cycle end. Skip for prototypes, pure libraries, or when no integration boundaries exist.
Reviewing a Go/TS service's operational risk by mapping integration failure points (external HTTP calls, queue consumers, outbound webhooks), simulating stuck intermediate states for each entity in a flow, and classifying each scenario into tiers — then emitting operational runbooks (Tier 2) or gap specs (Tier 3). Two entry modes: explore an existing codebase, or read a dev-cycle plan.md and epic artifacts. Use before production hardening, incident retros, or at dev-cycle end. Skip for prototypes, pure libraries, or when no integration boundaries exist.
Operational Risk Review
When to use
Preparing a service for production and want to know what breaks when a flow gets stuck
After a dev-cycle: pressure-test the newly built flows for recovery gaps
Incident retro: formalize which failure modes have a rescue path and which do not
You need operational runbooks or a backlog of "missing rescue mechanism" gap specs
Skip when
Prototype / throwaway PoC not heading to production
Pure library or SDK with no integration boundaries (no external calls, queues, or webhooks)
Single-question check (use a targeted read instead of the full review)
For every failure scenario, a tier and an actionable artifact:
Tier
Meaning
Output
Tier 1
The app resolves it itself — automatic retry, compensation, TTL/expiry, DLQ replay
Note only (documented as self-healing)
Tier 2
An external trigger exists that unblocks it — an API call, an endpoint, a Console/UI action
Operational runbook with concrete steps
Tier 3
Gap — no rescue path exists short of direct DB intervention
Gap spec (what's missing, who can act today, what should exist)
Audience
The output is always written for the developer running the skill (tech lead or engineer). Runbooks assume operator access; gap specs assume backlog ownership.
How this skill runs: a hybrid (mechanical + judgement) flow
The review is split into two phases so the deterministic work is not left to the LLM:
Phase 1 — mechanical (scan-integration-points.mjs, run by the dev):
A zero-dependency Node.js script traverses the target repo and finds integration
boundaries (external HTTP calls, queue consumers, event publishers, outbound
webhooks). For each point it heuristically records whether retry, DLQ, timeout,
rollback/compensation, and idempotency patterns appear nearby. It emits a
structured JSON report. It is generic: it runs on any Go or TypeScript/Node.js
Lerian repo. This phase is repeatable and produces the same map every time.
Phase 2 — judgement (this agent, from here on):
The agent takes the JSON as structured context, runs the confirmation dialogue,
simulates stuck states, classifies Tier 1/2/3, and writes runbooks (T2) and gap
specs (T3). This is the analysis that needs a human-in-the-loop and cannot be
reduced to regex.
The developer runs the .mjs first and pastes/attaches its JSON output to
the agent before the dialogue begins. In Mode A the agent uses that JSON as
the boundary map instead of re-deriving it by hand. See Step 1 (Mode A).
Step 0: Determine entry mode
Ask the developer (or infer from context):
Mode A — Codebase explore: review an existing service by scanning its integration boundaries.
Mode B — Plan context: review flows just built in a dev-cycle by reading plan.md and the current cycle's epic artifacts, without exploring the whole repo.
If a plan.md (ring:writing-plans format) with an active cycle is present and the developer wants to review what was just built, prefer Mode B. Otherwise use Mode A.
Step 1 (Mode A): Map integration boundaries — run the scanner first
The boundary map is produced mechanically by the script, not by hand. The
developer runs it against the target repo and gives the JSON to the agent:
# From the target repo root (any Go or TS/Node.js Lerian service):
node /path/to/reviewing-operational-risk/scan-integration-points.mjs . --out ops-risk-scan.json
# then paste/attach ops-risk-scan.json to the agent before the dialogue.
Monorepo / hexagonal Go — do NOT scan only the service subdir. In a
hexagonal layout the outbound boundaries live in the imported pkg/* (or
shared adapter) packages, not under apps/<svc>. Scanning only
apps/<svc> returns a false 0. The scanner defends against this: given a
subdir it walks up to the repo/module root, scans the whole tree, and
attributes each boundary to its service via top-level dir. Always run from
the repo root (or let the scanner expand to it) so pkg/* adapters and
ports/out methods are included. If you must scan a single subdir, pass
--no-repo-root and expect the map to miss shared adapters. Whenever
integration_points == 0 for a service that imports ports/out, the scanner
emits an explicit warnings[] entry — treat it as a scope error, not a clean
bill of health.
The scanner is port-aware and adapter-aware: each method of a ports/out
interface is treated as a boundary candidate (category: "outbound_port"), and
its resilience is inferred over the whole concrete adapter file — so an SDK
adapter (e.g. midazsdk.WithTimeout, DoWithRetry) that never calls net/http
directly is still detected. Resilience for Go line-matches is inferred over the
enclosing function, not a fixed ±N-line window, so a retry/timeout wrapper
elsewhere in the function still counts.
Optional per-repo config (.ops-risk.json) at the repo root tunes
detection: shared_adapter_dirs, http_wrapper_packages, outbound_port_globs,
and exclude_handler_globs. The scanner auto-generates a default on first run
if none exists (pass --no-gen-config to skip). Edit it to match the repo's
layout before a serious review.
The script emits ring.ops-risk.integration-scan.v1 JSON:
{"scan_root":"/repo","requested_target":"/repo/apps/svc","warnings":[{"level":"warn","code":"zero_boundaries_in_port_service","service":"apps/svc","message":"0 fronteiras num serviço que importa ports/out ..."}],"summary":{"files_scanned":210,"integration_points":102,"by_category":{...},"by_service":{...},"files_by_top_dir":{...},"services_importing_ports_out":["apps/svc"],"http_wrapper_packages_detected":["httpclient"]},"integration_points":[{"category":"http_outbound","direction":"outbound","language":"go","service":"apps/svc","file":"internal/x.go","line":156,"snippet":"...","resilience":{"retry":false,"dlq":false,"timeout":true,"rollback":false,"idempotency":false}},{"category":"outbound_port","direction":"outbound","language":"go","service":"pkg","file":"pkg/midazadapter/adapter.go","line":42,"port":{"interface":"PaymentPort","method":"Charge","declared_in":"apps/svc/ports/out/gateway.go"},"resilience":{"retry":true,"timeout":true,"dlq":false,"rollback":false,"idempotency":false}}],"resilience_gaps":[{"file":"...","line":156,"category":"...","service":"...","missing":["retry","dlq"]}]}
Always read warnings[] first: a zero_integration_points or
zero_boundaries_in_port_service warning means the map is probably incomplete
(scope error) and must not be treated as "no boundaries exist".
The agent consumes this JSON as the starting boundary map. Treat every hit as
a candidate and every false resilience flag as a prompt to verify, not a
confirmed gap — the regex scan is deterministic but heuristic. The focus stays
on what the service expects to receive and how it reacts when it does not —
do NOT leave the repo to inspect dependencies.
If the script cannot be run (no Node.js, restricted env), fall back to manual
greps for the same boundaries — run these from the repo root and cover the
same root set as the scanner (internal/ components/ pkg/ src/ apps/ cmd/ services/ plugins/), not just the service subdir:
For each integration point, confirm the resilience posture (the script
pre-fills these flags; verify them against the code):
Attribute
What to check
Retry
Is there a retry policy (count, backoff)?
Rollback / compensation
On failure, is there a compensating action or saga step?
DLQ
Dead-letter queue or parking for un-processable messages?
Timeout handling
Explicit context timeout + handling of the timeout path?
Idempotency
Safe to reprocess without duplicate side effects?
Produce a boundary map: {integration_point, direction, entities_touched, resilience: {retry, rollback, dlq, timeout, idempotency}}.
Step 1 (Mode B): Extract the flow from the plan
Read the cycle's plan.md and the epic artifacts of the current cycle only:
## Phase Overview + the active phase's ### Epic N.M: sections → the flows built this cycle
Each epic's task blocks → the entities created/mutated and the transitions between them
Any linked design docs (data model, API contracts) referenced by the epics
Produce, per flow: {flow_name, entry_point, entities[], state_transitions[], terminal_state}. Do not scan the whole repo — the plan is the source.
Step 2: Confirmation dialogue with the developer
Before analysing failures, confirm the model out loud and get agreement. In
Mode A, drive this dialogue from the scanner JSON — walk the developer
through the integration_points and the resilience_gaps the script surfaced,
and let them correct false positives/negatives before you classify anything:
For flow "<flow_name>":
Entry point: <e.g. POST /transfers>
Terminal state: <e.g. transfer.status = SETTLED>
Entities & states: <entity: [state1 → state2 → state3]>
Dependencies: <external calls / queues / webhooks identified>
Is this correct? Anything missing or misidentified?
Incorporate corrections before proceeding. This gate prevents analysing a wrong model.
Step 3: Simulate stuck intermediate states
For each intermediate state of each entity in the flow, simulate a failure of progression and trace downstream impact:
For entity E, transition Sn → Sn+1:
1. Assume E is stuck in Sn (the transition never completes).
2. What triggers Sn → Sn+1? (a consumer, an HTTP response, a scheduled job, a user action)
3. If that trigger never fires or fails:
- What downstream entities/flows are blocked or left inconsistent?
- Is there money / data / a user commitment left in limbo?
4. What, if anything, moves E forward or unwinds it?
Record one scenario per stuck state.
Step 4: Classify each scenario into a tier
Tier
Test
Example
Tier 1
A mechanism inside the app recovers it with no human trigger
A rescue path exists but needs an external trigger
re-drive endpoint, admin API, "retry" button in Console, replay CLI
Tier 3
No rescue path exists without touching the database directly
stuck row with no re-drive, orphaned record no API can fix
Downgrade honestly: if the "retry" only works when the DB is hand-edited first, it's Tier 3, not Tier 2.
Step 5: Emit outputs
Write to docs/ops-risk/<flow-or-service>-<YYYY-MM-DD>.md.
Tier 2 → Operational runbook
### Runbook: <scenario>
Symptom: <how an operator recognises the stuck state>
Detection: <query / metric / log to confirm>
Trigger: <the exact API call / endpoint / Console action that unblocks it>
Steps: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ...
Verification: <how to confirm the entity reached terminal state>
Blast radius: <what else is affected while stuck>
Tier 3 → Gap spec
### Gap: <scenario>
What's missing: <the rescue mechanism that does not exist>
Impact if hit: <blast radius, data/money at risk, frequency estimate>
Who can act today: <e.g. only a DBA with prod write access>
What should exist: <new API / endpoint / Console UI action / automated job>
Suggested owner: <team / epic to carry it>
Summarize: mode used, flows reviewed, scenario count per tier, the count of Tier 3 gaps (the important number), and the path to the generated file. Offer to open issues for Tier 3 gaps if the developer wants a backlog.
Red Flags — STOP
Classifying a scenario Tier 2 when the "trigger" only works after a manual DB edit → it is Tier 3.
Leaving the repo in Mode A to audit a dependency's internals → out of scope; review only how THIS service reacts.
Skipping the Step 2 confirmation dialogue → you may be analysing the wrong flow model.
Trusting the scanner's resilience flags as ground truth → they are heuristic; a true is a hint and a false is a prompt to verify, never a final verdict.
Starting the analysis in Mode A without the scan-integration-points.mjs JSON when Node.js is available → run the mechanical phase first, then reason over its output.
Scanning only apps/<svc> in a hexagonal monorepo and trusting a 0 result → the boundaries live in imported pkg/* adapters; a subdir-only scan is a false 0. Run from the repo root (the scanner auto-expands) and never treat a warnings[] scope alert as "no boundaries exist".
Reporting only Tier 3 counts without the concrete "what should exist" → a gap without a spec is not actionable.
Common Mistakes
Analysing happy path only. The whole point is the stuck intermediate states, not the terminal success.
Treating a DLQ as Tier 1 automatically. A DLQ with no replay path is really a Tier 2 (needs a re-drive) or Tier 3 (nothing drains it).
Mode B scope creep. In plan-context mode, read the plan and epic artifacts — do not fall back into full-repo exploration.
