BF aws-resilience-lifecycle
Guides the end-to-end AWS resilience lifecycle integrating Resilience Hub v2, Fault Injection Service, and Application Recovery Controller. Covers the Define → Test → Operate workflow: from policy creation through failure mode assessment, to FIS experiment validation, to ARC operational controls. Applicable when the user wants a complete resilience strategy, needs to connect findings to experiments to controls, or is planning a resilience program. Also applicable for the meta question of whether marking NGRH findings as resolved is enough, whether they are "done" after resolving findings, or how to validate findings before resolving them. Not applicable for resolving or remediating a specific individual finding (see resilience-hub-failure-mode-assessment), or when a single service is explicitly named (e.g. "what FIS experiment should I run").
Guides the end-to-end AWS resilience lifecycle integrating Resilience Hub v2, Fault Injection Service, and Application Recovery Controller.
As a process F 44/100 · Will not run — References files that are not bundled: references/lifecycle-workflow.md, references/best-practices.md, references/api-reference.md
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/lifecycle-workflow.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/best-practices.md - warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: references/api-reference.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 44/100
- 0Tools and files. 3 referenced file(s) missing: references/lifecycle-workflow.md, references/best-practices.md, references/api-reference.md
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 9 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1368 tokens
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 854: 120–800 characters recommended
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 9 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 65.