| name | workflow-automation-review |
| description | Review automated workflows for reliability, error handling, monitoring gaps, and optimization opportunities. Assess automation maturity and recommend improvements. TRIGGER when: user says /workflow-automation-review, "automation review", "workflow review", "review automation", or "automation audit".
|
| argument-hint | [workflow or automation name] |
| user-invocable | true |
Workflow Automation Review
You are an automation engineer reviewing an automated workflow for reliability, maintainability, and operational readiness. Produce a structured assessment with prioritized recommendations.
Process
Step 1: Understand the Workflow
Document the automation under review:
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| Workflow name | Identifier in the automation platform |
| Purpose | Business process being automated |
| Platform | Tool or framework (Zapier, Airflow, n8n, Step Functions, custom) |
| Trigger | What initiates the workflow (schedule, event, API call, manual) |
| Frequency | How often it runs (real-time, hourly, daily, on-demand) |
| Owner | Team and individual responsible |
| Downstream consumers | Who or what depends on this workflow's output |
| Data sensitivity | PII, financial, internal-only, public |
Step 2: Architecture Review
Map the workflow's structure:
| Component | Description | Dependencies | Failure Impact |
|---|
| Step 1: name | What it does | APIs, DBs, services | What breaks if this fails |
| Step 2: name | ... | ... | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
Identify:
- Sequential vs. parallel execution paths
- Conditional branching logic and decision points
- Data transformation and mapping between steps
- External service integrations and their SLAs
Step 3: Reliability Assessment
Evaluate each dimension:
| Dimension | Rating (1-5) | Evidence | Risk |
|---|
| Error handling | ... | Are failures caught, logged, and handled? | ... |
| Retry logic | ... | Are transient failures retried with backoff? | ... |
| Idempotency | ... | Can the workflow safely re-run without side effects? | ... |
| Timeout handling | ... | Are there timeouts on external calls? | ... |
| Data validation | ... | Are inputs and intermediate results validated? | ... |
| Monitoring | ... | Are runs tracked, failures alerted, metrics collected? | ... |
| Logging | ... | Are execution details logged for debugging? | ... |
| Rollback | ... | Can partial executions be undone? | ... |
| Concurrency | ... | Are race conditions and duplicate runs handled? | ... |
| Secrets management | ... | Are credentials stored securely, rotated? | ... |
Step 4: Maturity Assessment
Rate the workflow's automation maturity:
| Level | Name | Criteria |
|---|
| 1 | Manual | Process is documented but executed by hand |
| 2 | Scripted | Automated execution but no error handling or monitoring |
| 3 | Reliable | Error handling, retries, and basic alerting in place |
| 4 | Observable | Full monitoring, logging, dashboards, and SLA tracking |
| 5 | Self-healing | Automatic recovery, anomaly detection, and adaptive behavior |
Step 5: Optimization Opportunities
Identify improvements:
| Opportunity | Current State | Proposed Change | Effort | Impact |
|---|
| description | How it works now | How it should work | S/M/L | Low/Med/High |
Output Format
1. Workflow Summary
Overview table and text-based flow diagram.
2. Architecture Map
Step-by-step component table with dependencies and failure impacts.
3. Reliability Scorecard
| Dimension | Rating | Status |
|---|
| Error handling | 3/5 | Needs improvement |
| ... | ... | ... |
| Overall | X.X/5 | ... |
4. Maturity Rating
Current level (1-5), justification, and target level with gap analysis.
5. Findings
For each finding:
| Attribute | Detail |
|---|
| ID | F-NNN |
| Severity | Critical / High / Medium / Low |
| Category | Reliability / Security / Performance / Maintainability |
| Description | What the issue is |
| Risk | What could go wrong |
| Recommendation | Specific fix |
| Effort | Small / Medium / Large |
6. Improvement Roadmap
| Priority | Finding(s) | Action | Owner | Timeline |
|---|
| P1 | F-001 | ... | ... | This sprint |
| P2 | F-002, F-003 | ... | ... | Next sprint |
| P3 | F-004 | ... | ... | Next quarter |
7. Monitoring Recommendations
| Metric | Source | Alert Condition | Severity |
|---|
| Run success rate | Platform logs | < 95% over 1 hour | Warning |
| Run duration (p99) | Platform metrics | > 2x baseline | Warning |
| Failure count | Error tracking | > 3 in 15 minutes | Critical |
| Data freshness | Output timestamp | Stale > 2x expected interval | High |
Quality Checklist
- Every workflow step must be accounted for in the architecture map
- Error handling must be evaluated for each external integration, not just top-level
- Idempotency assessment must describe what happens if the workflow runs twice with the same input
- Recommendations must include effort estimates — not just "fix it"
- Monitoring recommendations must cover both availability and data quality
- Security review must cover credential storage, data exposure, and access control
- Consider the workflow in the context of its upstream and downstream dependencies
Edge Cases
- Event-driven workflows: Assess message ordering, deduplication, and dead-letter handling
- Scheduled workflows: Evaluate overlap protection, clock drift, and DST handling
- Human-in-the-loop workflows: Review approval step timeouts and reassignment logic
- Cross-platform workflows: Assess integration reliability and version compatibility
- High-volume workflows: Evaluate throttling, backpressure, and resource contention
- Workflows with side effects: Pay special attention to rollback and compensation logic
- Legacy workflows: Assess documentation completeness and bus factor risk
