Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Enforce Kubernetes network segmentation using Calico CNI network policies and global network policies to control pod-to-pod traffic, restrict egress, and implement zero-trust microsegmentation.
.claude/skills/implementing-container-network-policies-with-calico/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-17 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-18 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-20 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-08 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
| case-03 | ✗→✗ | = Same ✗ | — | — |
Calico provides Kubernetes-native and extended network policy enforcement through its CNI plugin. This skill covers creating and auditing Calico NetworkPolicy and GlobalNetworkPolicy resources to implement pod-to-pod traffic control, namespace isolation, egress restrictions, and DNS-based policy rules using calicoctl and the Kubernetes API.
kubernetes client libraryUse calicoctl and kubectl to inventory current network policies and identify unprotected namespaces.
Create default-deny ingress and egress policies per namespace as a zero-trust baseline.
Define granular allow rules for legitimate pod-to-pod and pod-to-service communication.
Test connectivity between pods to verify policies are correctly enforced.
JSON audit report listing all network policies, unprotected namespaces, policy rule counts, and connectivity test results.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-17 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-20 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-05 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-07 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-06 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-19 | fail→fail | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
case-22 | 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. The headline lift of -100 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is 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.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.