Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Analyze Azure resource health, diagnose issues from logs and telemetry, and create a remediation plan for identified problems.
.claude/skills/azure-resource-health-diagnose/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | — | — |
This workflow analyzes a specific Azure resource to assess its health status, diagnose potential issues using logs and telemetry data, and develop a comprehensive remediation plan for any problems discovered.
azmcp-*) over direct Azure CLI when availableAction: Retrieve diagnostic and troubleshooting best practices Tools: Azure MCP best practices tool Process:
Action: Locate and identify the target Azure resource Tools: Azure MCP tools + Azure CLI fallback Process:
azmcp-subscription-listaz resource list --name <resource-name> to find matching resourcesAction: Evaluate current resource health and availability Tools: Azure MCP monitoring tools + Azure CLI Process:
Action: Analyze logs and telemetry to identify issues and patterns Tools: Azure MCP monitoring tools for Log Analytics queries Process:
azmcp-monitor-workspace-list to identify Log Analytics workspacesazmcp-monitor-table-listUse azmcp-monitor-log-query with targeted KQL queries based on resource type:
General Error Analysis: kql // Recent errors and exceptions union isfuzzy=true AzureDiagnostics, AppServiceHTTPLogs, AppServiceAppLogs, AzureActivity | where TimeGenerated > ago(24h) | where Level == "Error" or ResultType != "Success" | summarize ErrorCount=count() by Resource, ResultType, bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | order by TimeGenerated desc
Performance Analysis: kql // Performance degradation patterns Perf | where TimeGenerated > ago(7d) | where ObjectName == "Processor" and CounterName == "% Processor Time" | summarize avg(CounterValue) by Computer, bin(TimeGenerated, 1h) | where avg_CounterValue > 80
Application-Specific Queries: kql // Application Insights - Failed requests requests | where timestamp > ago(24h) | where success == false | summarize FailureCount=count() by resultCode, bin(timestamp, 1h) | order by timestamp desc
// Database - Connection failures AzureDiagnostics | where ResourceProvider == "MICROSOFT.SQL" | where Category == "SQLSecurityAuditEvents" | where action_name_s == "CONNECTION_FAILED" | summarize ConnectionFailures=count() by bin(TimeGenerated, 1h)
Action: Categorize identified issues and determine root causes Process:
Action: Create a comprehensive plan to address identified issues Process:
Action: Present findings and get approval for remediation actions Process:
🏥 Azure Resource Health Assessment
📊 Resource Overview: • Resource: Name] (Type]) • Status: Healthy/Warning/Critical] • Location: Region] • Last Analyzed: Timestamp]
🚨 Issues Identified: • Critical: X issues requiring immediate attention • High: Y issues affecting performance/reliability • Medium: Z issues for optimization • Low: N informational items
🔍 Top Issues:
🛠️ Remediation Plan: • Immediate Actions: X items • Short-term Fixes: Y items • Long-term Improvements: Z items • Estimated Resolution Time: Timeline]
❓ Proceed with detailed remediation plan? (y/n)
markdown # Azure Resource Health Report: Resource Name]
Generated: Timestamp] Resource: Full Resource ID] Overall Health: Status with color indicator]
## 🔍 Executive Summary Brief overview of health status and key findings]
## 📊 Health Metrics
## 🚨 Issues Identified
### Critical Issues
### High Priority Issues
## 🛠️ Remediation Plan
### Phase 1: Immediate Actions (0-2 hours) bash # Critical fixes to restore service [Azure CLI commands with explanations]
### Phase 2: Short-term Fixes (2-24 hours) bash # Performance and reliability improvements [Azure CLI commands with explanations]
### Phase 3: Long-term Improvements (1-4 weeks) bash # Architectural and preventive measures [Azure CLI commands and configuration changes]
## 📈 Monitoring Recommendations
## ✅ Validation Steps
## 📝 Prevention Measures
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-09 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted, and 20 counted toward the lift figure. The other 2 produced results that are not comparable between the two arms, so they are excluded from the headline rather than averaged into it. The headline lift of +36 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 20 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
The per-case answers from this run were removed by the retention sweep, so the case table below shows the verdicts without the text either arm produced. The counts above were recorded at the time and are unaffected. Answers are now kept for 180 days.
| Model | Method | Date | Lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | verified | 7/26/2026 | +32% |
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.