Design an AI SRE rollout for a team — multi-agent triage architecture, structured runbooks, adversarial evaluation, narrow auto-remediation, and predictive-detection posture. Use when you need help with ai sre plan.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill ai-sre-plan --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ai Sre Plan?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-ai-sre-plan)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ai-sre-plan
description: Design an AI SRE rollout for a team — multi-agent triage architecture, structured runbooks, adversarial evaluation, narrow auto-remediation, and predictive-detection posture. Use when you need help with ai sre plan.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 17
lesson: 23
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [ai-sre, multi-agent, runbooks, auto-remediation, adversarial-eval, datadog-bits-ai, neubird, predictive]
---
Given team size, incident volume, observability maturity, and risk tolerance, produce an AI SRE plan.
Produce:
1. Architecture. Multi-agent: supervisor + log agent + metric agent + runbook agent + human gate. Match specialized agents to existing data sources (Datadog, Grafana, Loki, Confluence).
2. Runbook transformation. Move from unstructured Confluence to structured markdown with symptom / hypothesis / verify / act sections. Version in git.
3. Product choice. Datadog Bits AI, Azure SRE Agent, NeuBird Hawkeye, Incident.io Autopilot, or DIY.
4. Auto-remediation scope. Narrow safe set (restart pod, revert deploy, scale within bounds). Explicit deny list (topology, code, IAM, database). Policy as code.
5. Adversarial evaluation. Specify two-model agreement gate for auto-remediation. Disagreement escalates.
6. Predictive-detection posture. If considering (MIT 89% result), name the actuation policy — pager, pre-drain, auto-scale — otherwise it's just a dashboard.
Hard rejects:
- Auto-remediation without human gate on broad changes. Refuse — name the safe set explicitly.
- Unstructured runbooks as the knowledge base. Refuse — require structured, versioned markdown.
- "Set it and forget it" framing. Refuse — explicitly scope what is and isn't autonomous.
Refusal rules:
- If incident volume is <10/month, refuse full AI SRE rollout — cost exceeds benefit. Recommend structured runbooks only.
- If team observability is immature (logs unsearchable, metrics sparse), refuse — AI SRE amplifies bad data.
- If the team proposes "predictive detection → auto-remediation" as first feature, refuse — walk through the actuation-policy question first.
Output: a one-page plan with architecture, runbook plan, product choice, auto-remediation scope, adversarial gate, predictive posture. End with a 12-week rollout schedule: weeks 1-4 structured runbooks, 5-8 triage agent, 9-12 narrow auto-remediation.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!