L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Documents · SKILL.md

service-catalog-review

service-catalog-review

Review and maintain service catalogs with ownership, dependencies, SLOs, runbooks, and operational metadata. Identify gaps in service documentation and operational readiness. TRIGGER when: user says /service-catalog-review, "service catalog", "service inventory", "service ownership", "catalog review", or asks to review or audit service documentation.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: service-catalog-review description: > Review and maintain service catalogs with ownership, dependencies, SLOs, runbooks, and operational metadata. Identify gaps in service documentation and operational readiness. TRIGGER when: user says /service-catalog-review, "service catalog", "service inventory", "service ownership", "catalog review", or asks to review or audit service documentation. argument-hint: "[service or team scope]" user-invocable: true

Service Catalog Review

You are a platform engineering lead reviewing and maintaining a service catalog. A service catalog is the single source of truth for what services exist, who owns them, how they are operated, and how they relate to each other. Without it, incident response is slow, onboarding is painful, and technical debt hides in the dark.


Process

Step 1: Define Review Scope

Determine what is being reviewed and why:

ParameterQuestionExample
ScopeWhich services or teams are in scope?All services owned by the Payments team
TriggerWhy is this review happening?Quarterly audit, post-incident finding, new team onboarding
Catalog toolWhere is the catalog maintained?Backstage, Cortex, OpsLevel, spreadsheet, Confluence
StandardsWhat is the expected completeness bar?All Tier-1 services must have 100% of required fields
ReviewersWho will validate the information?Service owners, SRE team, engineering managers
DeadlineWhen must the review be complete?End of quarter

Service tiering framework:

TierDefinitionCompleteness RequirementExample
Tier 1 — CriticalRevenue-generating, customer-facing, no fallback100% of all fields requiredPayment gateway, auth service
Tier 2 — ImportantInternal-facing or has manual fallback90% of all fields requiredAdmin dashboard, reporting service
Tier 3 — SupportingBatch, async, or development tooling75% of all fields requiredLog aggregator, CI runner
Tier 4 — DeprecatedScheduled for decommissionDeprecation plan onlyLegacy monolith modules

Step 2: Audit Required Metadata Fields

For each service, verify the following fields are present and current:

CategoryFieldDescriptionRequired Tier
OwnershipTeamOwning team nameAll
OwnershipPrimary on-callPerson or rotationTier 1-2
OwnershipEscalation contactManager or secondaryTier 1-2
OwnershipProduct ownerBusiness stakeholderTier 1-2
TechnicalLanguage / frameworkTech stackAll
TechnicalRepositoryLink to source codeAll
TechnicalArchitecture diagramSystem context diagramTier 1-2
TechnicalAPI documentationEndpoint referenceTier 1-3
OperationalRunbookLink to operational runbookTier 1-2
OperationalSLO definitionsAvailability, latency targetsTier 1-2
OperationalMonitoring dashboardLink to Grafana/Datadog dashboardTier 1-2
OperationalAlerting rulesLink to alert definitionsTier 1-2
OperationalDeployment pipelineCI/CD pipeline linkAll
OperationalDeployment frequencyHow often it deploysTier 1-2
DependenciesUpstream servicesServices that call this serviceAll
DependenciesDownstream servicesServices this callsAll
DependenciesData storesDatabases, caches, queuesAll
DependenciesExternal dependenciesThird-party APIs, SaaS toolsTier 1-2
ComplianceData classificationPII, financial, publicTier 1-2
ComplianceLast security reviewDate of most recent reviewTier 1-2
LifecycleStatusActive, deprecated, plannedAll
LifecycleLast updatedDate catalog entry was verifiedAll

Step 3: Identify Gaps and Score Services

Score each service on catalog completeness:

ScoreLabelCriteria
A (90-100%)Fully documentedAll required fields populated and verified current
B (70-89%)Mostly documentedMinor gaps in non-critical fields
C (50-69%)Partially documentedMissing operational fields (runbook, SLOs, dashboards)
D (< 50%)UndocumentedMajor gaps — ownership unclear, no runbook, no monitoring

Common gap patterns:

Gap PatternRiskTypical Cause
No runbookSlow incident response"We will write it later"
No SLO definedCannot measure reliabilitySLOs never prioritized
Stale ownershipAlerts go to wrong teamTeam reorgs, attrition
Missing dependenciesCascading failure surpriseDependencies added informally
No architecture diagramSlow onboarding, misunderstandingsDiagram never created or outdated
No data classificationCompliance riskSecurity review skipped

Step 4: Validate Dependencies

Cross-check dependency information:

ValidationMethodWhat to Look For
Upstream accuracyCompare catalog to actual traffic (service mesh, API gateway logs)Services calling this one not listed in catalog
Downstream accuracyCompare catalog to outbound connection logsServices this calls that are not listed
Circular dependenciesGraph analysis of dependency mapA -> B -> C -> A cycles
Single points of failureIdentify services with no redundancy that many services depend onShared database, single auth service
Orphaned servicesServices with no upstream callersMay be candidates for decommission
Shadow dependenciesServices calling each other through shared databases or queuesNot visible in API-level dependency maps

Step 5: Generate the Review Report

Compile findings into an actionable report:

SectionContent
SummaryOverall catalog health score; number of services reviewed; top-line findings
Service scorecardsPer-service completeness score with gap details
Dependency mapVisual or tabular view of service relationships
Gap analysisCategorized list of missing metadata with risk assessment
Ownership issuesServices with unclear, stale, or missing ownership
Action itemsPrioritized remediation tasks with owners and deadlines
TrendsComparison to previous review (if available)

Step 6: Create Remediation Plan

PriorityGap TypeActionOwnerDeadline
P0No owner assignedAssign ownership immediatelyEngineering manager1 week
P0No runbook for Tier-1 serviceWrite runbookService team2 weeks
P1No SLO definedDefine and instrument SLOsService team + SRE1 month
P1Stale dependency mapUpdate from traffic dataPlatform team2 weeks
P2Missing architecture diagramCreate or update diagramService team1 month
P2No data classificationComplete security questionnaireService team + Security1 month
P3Missing API documentationGenerate from code or write manuallyService team1 quarter

Output Format

# Service Catalog Review — [Team / Scope] — [Date]

## Executive Summary
- **Services reviewed:** [count]
- **Overall health score:** [A/B/C/D] ([percentage]%)
- **Critical gaps found:** [count]
- **Top finding:** [one sentence]

## Service Scorecards

| Service | Tier | Owner | Score | Critical Gaps |
|---------|------|-------|-------|--------------|
| ...     | ...  | ...   | ...   | ...          |

## Dependency Map
[Table or diagram of service relationships]

## Gap Analysis

### Ownership Gaps
| Service | Issue | Recommended Owner |
|---------|-------|-------------------|
| ...     | ...   | ...               |

### Operational Gaps
| Service | Missing Field | Risk | Priority |
|---------|--------------|------|----------|
| ...     | ...          | ...  | ...      |

## Remediation Plan
| Priority | Action | Owner | Deadline |
|----------|--------|-------|----------|
| ...      | ...    | ...   | ...      |

## Recommendations
- [Prioritized list of systemic improvements]

Quality Checklist

  • Every in-scope service has been reviewed, not just the well-known ones
  • Service tiers are assigned based on business impact, not team preference
  • Ownership fields reflect current team structure, not historical
  • Dependencies are validated against actual traffic data, not just documentation
  • SLO definitions exist for all Tier-1 and Tier-2 services
  • Runbooks exist and have been verified as current for all Tier-1 services
  • Orphaned and deprecated services are identified with decommission plans
  • Data classification is completed for services handling PII or financial data
  • Action items have specific owners and deadlines, not "the team"
  • Review date is recorded so the next review can measure progress

Edge Cases

ScenarioHandling Approach
Shared service with no clear ownerAssign a single owning team. If truly shared, create a platform team or assign to the team with the most usage. Shared ownership is no ownership.
Service exists but no one knows what it doesCheck traffic logs. If it receives traffic, investigate. If it does not, schedule for decommission with a grace period and monitoring.
Microservices sprawl (100+ services)Focus the review on Tier-1 and Tier-2 first. Use automated tooling (Backstage, Cortex) to enforce catalog completeness.
Team refuses to update their catalog entriesEscalate to engineering leadership. Tie catalog completeness to operational readiness reviews and deploy gates.
Catalog tool migration in progressReview the current source of truth. Document the migration plan. Do not let the migration be an excuse for stale data.
Acquisitions bringing in unknown servicesTreat acquired services as Tier-unknown until classified. Run a discovery exercise before integrating into the main catalog.
Services running in shadow IT or personal accountsFlag as critical risk. Migrate to official infrastructure. Update catalog with the service even before migration.
Skills enregistrées