operations — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited operations (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Umbrella skill for business operations: vendor management, runbooks, process documentation, risk assessment, capacity planning, change management, compliance tracking, status reporting, and process optimization. Each mode loads its own reference files on demand.
Scope: Operational workflows that keep the business running. Use csuite for strategic decisions, finance for budgeting/forecasting, and hr for people operations.
Classify the request into exactly one mode. If it spans multiple, choose the primary and note the secondary.
| Mode | Signal Phrases | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| RUNBOOK | runbook, procedure, on-call, playbook, step-by-step, ops task | references/runbook-authoring.md |
| RISK | risk assessment, risk register, what could go wrong, risk matrix | references/risk-assessment.md |
| VENDOR | vendor review, vendor evaluation, contract review, procurement | references/vendor-management.md |
| PROCESS | process doc, SOP, RACI, workflow documentation, process map | references/process-documentation.md |
| CHANGE | change request, change management, CAB, rollout, deployment change | references/change-management.md |
| CAPACITY | capacity plan, resource allocation, utilization, headcount planning | references/process-documentation.md |
| COMPLIANCE | compliance, audit prep, SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, regulatory | references/risk-assessment.md |
| STATUS | status report, weekly update, project health, KPIs | (no deep reference needed) |
| OPTIMIZE | process improvement, bottleneck, streamline, too many steps | references/process-documentation.md |
Always load references/llm-ops-failure-modes.md regardless of mode. It contains the failure patterns that apply across all operations work.
Framework: SCOPE -> AUTHOR -> VERIFY
Phase 1: SCOPE -- Define what the runbook covers.
Gate: Task named. Prerequisites listed. Trigger defined.
Phase 2: AUTHOR -- Write the procedure with painful specificity.
Load references/runbook-authoring.md.
Critical rules:
python sync.py --prod --dry-run from /opt/ops/ as deploy-user IS a step| Step Component | Required | Example | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Action | Yes | kubectl rollout restart deployment/api -n production | |
| Expected result | Yes | "Pods restart within 60s. kubectl get pods shows 3/3 Running." | |
| Failure handling | Yes | "If pods stay in CrashLoopBackOff >2min, proceed to Rollback." | |
| Verification | Yes | `curl -s https://api.example.com/health | jq .status returns "ok"` |
| Rollback | Per-step | kubectl rollout undo deployment/api -n production |
Gate: Every step has all five components. Rollback procedure exists. Escalation path defined.
Phase 3: VERIFY -- Validate the runbook is actually usable.
Gate: All steps self-contained. No implicit knowledge. Troubleshooting table complete.
Framework: IDENTIFY -> ASSESS -> MITIGATE
Phase 1: IDENTIFY -- Enumerate risks systematically by category.
Load references/risk-assessment.md.
| Category | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| Operational | Process failures, staffing gaps, system outages, single points of failure |
| Financial | Budget overruns, vendor cost increases, revenue impact, currency exposure |
| Compliance | Regulatory violations, audit findings, policy breaches, certification gaps |
| Strategic | Market changes, competitive threats, technology shifts, dependency risks |
| Reputational | Customer impact, public perception, partner relationships, data incidents |
| Security | Data breaches, access control failures, third-party vulnerabilities |
Gate: Risks enumerated across all applicable categories. Each risk has a clear description.
Phase 2: ASSESS -- Score each risk on probability and impact.
Apply the probability x impact matrix:
| Low Impact | Medium Impact | High Impact | |
|---|---|---|---|
| High Probability | Medium | High | Critical |
| Medium Probability | Low | Medium | High |
| Low Probability | Low | Low | Medium |
For each risk:
Gate: Every risk scored. No unquantified "High" without supporting rationale.
Phase 3: MITIGATE -- Plan mitigations and track residual risk.
For each High/Critical risk:
Gate: All High/Critical risks have mitigations with owners and dates. Residual risk documented.
Framework: EVALUATE -> SCORE -> RECOMMEND
Phase 1: EVALUATE -- Gather structured information.
Load references/vendor-management.md.
Required inputs:
Due diligence checklist (minimum):
Gate: Due diligence complete. Contract terms reviewed. Red flags documented.
Phase 2: SCORE -- Apply the vendor scorecard.
| Dimension | Weight | Score (1-10) |
|---|---|---|
| Functional fit | 5x | |
| Total cost of ownership | 4x | |
| Integration complexity | 4x | |
| Support quality | 3x | |
| Security/compliance | 3x | |
| Data portability | 3x | |
| Company stability | 2x | |
| Contract flexibility | 2x |
TCO must include: license, implementation, training, support, ongoing maintenance, exit costs. License price alone is not TCO.
Gate: All dimensions scored with rationale. TCO calculated for Year 1 and Year 3.
Phase 3: RECOMMEND -- Deliver verdict with negotiation points.
Gate: Recommendation stated. Negotiation points listed. Monitoring plan defined.
Framework: MAP -> DOCUMENT -> OPTIMIZE
Phase 1: MAP -- Capture how the process actually works today.
Load references/process-documentation.md.
Gate: Current state mapped. All steps, handoffs, and exceptions documented.
Phase 2: DOCUMENT -- Produce the SOP.
Structure:
RACI rules:
Gate: SOP complete. RACI has exactly one A per step. Exceptions documented.
Phase 3: OPTIMIZE -- Identify improvement opportunities.
Gate: Bottlenecks identified. Recommendations specific and measurable.
Framework: ASSESS -> PLAN -> EXECUTE
Phase 1: ASSESS -- Define the change and its impact.
Load references/change-management.md.
Gate: Change defined. Impact assessed by area. Risks identified.
Phase 2: PLAN -- Build the implementation and communication plan.
| Plan Component | Required Elements |
|---|---|
| Implementation | Steps, owners, timeline, dependencies |
| Communication | Audience, message, channel, timing |
| Training | What skills needed, delivery method, timeline |
| Rollback | Trigger criteria, steps, verification |
| Approval | Who approves, role, current status |
Communication rules:
Gate: All plan components complete. Rollback plan has trigger criteria. Approvals identified.
Phase 3: EXECUTE -- Monitor adoption and sustain.
Gate: Adoption metrics defined. Lessons captured. Success criteria measurable.
Framework: INVENTORY -> FORECAST -> DECIDE
Phase 1: INVENTORY -- Map current capacity.
| Role Type | Target Utilization | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| IC / Specialist | 75-80% | Buffer for reactive work and growth |
| Manager | 60-70% | Management overhead, 1:1s, meetings |
| On-call / Support | 50-60% | Interrupt-driven work is unpredictable |
Gate: Current capacity mapped. Utilization calculated. Overallocations identified.
Phase 2: FORECAST -- Model upcoming demand.
Gate: Demand mapped. Bottlenecks identified. Scenarios modeled.
Phase 3: DECIDE -- Recommend action.
Gate: Recommendation stated. Trade-offs explicit. Buffer preserved.
Framework: MAP -> GAP -> REMEDIATE
Phase 1: MAP -- Identify applicable frameworks and current state.
| Framework | Focus | Key Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | Service organizations | Security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, privacy |
| ISO 27001 | Information security | Risk assessment, security controls, continuous improvement |
| GDPR | Data privacy (EU) | Consent, data rights, breach notification, DPO |
| HIPAA | Healthcare (US) | PHI protection, access controls, audit trails |
| PCI DSS | Payment card data | Encryption, access control, vulnerability management |
Gate: Frameworks identified. Controls inventoried.
Phase 2: GAP -- Find what is missing or deficient.
Load references/risk-assessment.md for risk-based prioritization of gaps.
Gate: Gaps identified and prioritized. Evidence gaps documented.
Phase 3: REMEDIATE -- Plan and track closure.
Gate: Remediation plan complete. Audit calendar set. Owners assigned.
Framework: GATHER -> SYNTHESIZE -> DELIVER
Produce a status report covering:
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Executive Summary | 3-4 sentences. What is on track, what needs attention, key wins. |
| Overall Status | On Track / At Risk / Off Track with justification |
| Key Metrics | KPI, target, actual, trend, status |
| Accomplishments | What got done this period |
| In Progress | Item, owner, status, ETA |
| Risks and Issues | Risk, impact, mitigation, owner |
| Decisions Needed | Decision, context, deadline, recommendation |
| Next Priorities | Top 3 for next period |
Rules:
Framework: MAP -> ANALYZE -> REDESIGN
Phase 1: MAP -- Document current state with timing.
Load references/process-documentation.md.
Phase 2: ANALYZE -- Identify waste.
| Waste Type | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| Waiting | Time in queues, waiting for approvals |
| Rework | Steps that fail and repeat |
| Handoffs | Each handoff = potential failure/delay point |
| Over-processing | Steps that add no value |
| Manual work | Tasks that could be automated |
Phase 3: REDESIGN -- Propose improvements.
| Error | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Vague runbook steps | LLM defaults to abstract language | Force each step through the 5-component template. Reject steps without exact commands. |
| Underestimated risk | Optimism bias in probability scoring | Challenge every "Low" probability. Ask: "What evidence supports Low, not Medium?" |
| Generic process docs | Template fill without reality check | Ask how the process actually works today, not how it should work. |
| Missing rollback | Assumed success path only | Require rollback before marking any change/runbook complete. |
| Scorecard inflation | All vendors score 7+ | Force relative scoring. At least one dimension per vendor must be below 5. |
| RACI with multiple As | Accountability diffusion | Enforce exactly one A per step. Multiple As = no one accountable. |
| Compliance checkbox theater | Controls documented but not tested | Require evidence of control effectiveness, not just existence. |
| Mode | Reference | Content |
|---|---|---|
| RUNBOOK | references/runbook-authoring.md | Step structure, verification checklists, rollback procedures, escalation paths |
| RISK, COMPLIANCE | references/risk-assessment.md | Probability x impact matrix, risk categories, mitigation planning, residual risk tracking |
| VENDOR | references/vendor-management.md | Vendor scorecard, due diligence checklist, contract review triggers, performance monitoring |
| PROCESS, CAPACITY, OPTIMIZE | references/process-documentation.md | Process mapping, RACI matrices, bottleneck analysis, optimization methodology |
| CHANGE | references/change-management.md | Change request workflows, impact assessment, stakeholder communication, rollback criteria |
| ALL | references/llm-ops-failure-modes.md | LLM failure patterns in operations: vague procedures, underestimated risks, generic templates |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.