Overview Benchmark Contents Activity Versions 2 Ratings 0
See it in action One of 3 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Prompt In our 4-layer telemetry model, where should checks that validate API response JSON contracts and required fields be categorized?
What was checked, without and with the skill Checked Without skill With skill Places API contract checks under Layer 2: Correctness.
Show both answers
What's inside The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md 254 lines 2 files
Monitoring and Alerting
Decide what to watch, what to alert on, and how to make sure the right person finds out when things break.
When to use
Setting up monitoring on a new site or service
Defining SLOs (service level objectives) and error budgets
Choosing which alerts page someone vs which go to a quiet channel
Designing or fixing on-call rotation
Diagnosing alert fatigue
Filling monitoring gaps revealed by an incident
Migrating monitoring vendors
When NOT to use
Responding to an active incident (use incident-response)
Writing the post-mortem (use after-action-report)
Designing analytics dashboards for product metrics (use analytics-strategy)
Performance optimization itself (use performance-optimization)
Required inputs
The system you're monitoring (URLs, services, dependencies)
Existing monitoring tools (uptime, errors, logs, APM)
Business hours and team timezone(s)
Who is on-call or available for incidents
Existing SLOs or success metrics, if any
The framework: 4 layers
Monitoring works in layers. Skip a layer and you'll miss a class of problems.
Layer 1: Availability When it activates Automatically, when a task matches.
Use this skill when setting up uptime checks, defining SLOs, configuring error tracking, choosing what to alert on, designing on-call rotations, or fixing alert fatigue. Triggers on monitoring, alerts, uptime, SLO, SLA, error rate, on-call, pager, alert fatigue, observability, dashboards, what should we monitor. Also triggers when an incident reveals a gap in monitoring.
Track record Benchmark 21 / 22
test cases passed, vs 18 / 22 without
Adoption
Users 0
Times used 0 View activity → Safety and source details
SkillSafety ✓ 3 of 3 passed ✓ Code scan 15 of 15 checks clean
0 critical · 0 warning · 0 info — scanner v4 — 8/10/2026
View 15 scanner checks live_secret remote_code_execution reverse_shell data_exfiltration ssrf_metadata agent_snooping anti_refusal destructive_commands obfuscated_unicode unicode_homoglyph opaque_blob suspicious_url tool_overreach trigger_abuse prompt_injection_phrasing
✓ Intent Safe
LLM judge · does the skill do what it claims
✓ Content Clean
LLM judge · policy & harmful-content review
Source Imported rampstackco / claude-skills
skills/monitoring-and-alerting/SKILL.md
View on GitHub ↗ License MITImported 9/17/2026Version v2Bundled 1 file