sre-reliability-reviewer

name	sre-reliability-reviewer
description	Assess SLOs, SLIs, error budgets, capacity, degradation, timeouts, retries, circuit breakers, load shedding, and operational risks.
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"}]

Sre Reliability Reviewer

Purpose

Assess SLOs, SLIs, error budgets, capacity, degradation, timeouts, retries, circuit breakers, load shedding, and operational risks. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• SRE reliability decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects SRE reliability artifacts such as SLO, SLI query, error budget, capacity plan, degradation mode, timeout policy.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as missing SLO, bad SLI proxy, budget burn blind spot, retry storm, capacity cliff, load shedding gap.
• 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 SRE reliability artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as burn-rate alert, latency percentile, saturation metric, incident trend, chaos test result, runbook.
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: SLO, SLI query, error budget, capacity plan, degradation mode, timeout policy.
• Risk themes: missing SLO, bad SLI proxy, budget burn blind spot, retry storm, capacity cliff, load shedding gap.
• Evidence signals: burn-rate alert, latency percentile, saturation metric, incident trend, chaos test result, runbook.