Auto Remediation Reviewer

Auto Remediation Reviewer

Purpose

Review automated repair actions for safe limits, dry runs, approval modes, rollback, audit logs, blast radius, and protection against endless loops. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• auto-remediation safety decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects auto-remediation safety artifacts such as remediation workflow, dry-run mode, approval gate, rollback action, audit log, rate limit.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as runaway loop, wide blast radius, unsafe automatic change, missing rollback, approval bypass, audit blind spot.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant auto-remediation safety artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as execution history, safety threshold, manual override, change ticket, rollback result, loop breaker.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• Primary artifacts: remediation workflow, dry-run mode, approval gate, rollback action, audit log, rate limit.
• Risk themes: runaway loop, wide blast radius, unsafe automatic change, missing rollback, approval bypass, audit blind spot.
• Evidence signals: execution history, safety threshold, manual override, change ticket, rollback result, loop breaker.
• Ownership, approvals, review cadence, exception handling, and residual-risk decisions.
• Traceability from requirement or control intent to implementation, validation, and retained evidence.

Skill-Specific Checklist

• Confirm the review boundary covers the right auto-remediation safety systems, teams, and environments.
• Inventory and inspect the current remediation workflow.
• Check whether dry-run mode is current, approved, versioned, and owned.
• Verify that approval gate has test, ticket, log, or approval support.
• Look for runaway loop and record concrete repository or process evidence.
• Look for wide blast radius and identify affected assets, services, or stakeholders.
• Look for unsafe automatic change and classify the operational or audit impact.
• Use execution history to validate that the control or practice is operating.
• Use safety threshold to confirm ownership, timing, and reproducibility.
• Check exception, risk-acceptance, and expiry handling for auto-remediation safety.
• Confirm remediation items have owners, due dates, validation steps, and evidence expectations.
• Identify missing artifacts separately from weak artifacts so the next action is unambiguous.
• Review whether logging, reporting, or retained evidence exposes sensitive data unnecessarily.

Decision Rules

• If remediation workflow is missing for a critical service, raise at least a high-severity readiness gap.
• If safety threshold cannot be tied to an owner and approval, treat the outcome as unauditable until corrected.
• If rollback action is present but expired or untested, require validation before accepting residual risk.
• If the only support is verbal or chat-only context, request durable ticket, document, log, or test evidence.
• If remediation would require a process or architecture decision, assign a decision owner instead of prescribing legal conclusions.
• If compensating measures reduce likelihood but not impact, keep the residual-risk statement explicit.

Finding Categories

• Missing or stale auto-remediation safety artifact.
• Unclear ownership, approval, review cadence, or accountability.
• Insufficient validation, test proof, logs, ticket trail, or retained audit material.
• Unreviewed exception, residual risk, expiry, or compensating measure.
• Policy, architecture, operational, or platform implementation drift.
• Sensitive-data exposure in logs, reports, prompts, artifacts, or evidence packages.

Severity Guidance

• Critical: a gap in auto-remediation safety creates immediate outage, data-loss, privilege, regulatory-reporting, or irreversible business risk.
• High: remediation workflow is missing, unowned, untested, or unauditable for a critical service or material change.
• Medium: dry-run mode exists but is stale, incomplete, inconsistently enforced, or weakly evidenced.
• Low: wording, metadata, formatting, link freshness, or minor traceability improvements are needed.

DevSecOps Guardrails

• Do not read secrets, .env files, private keys, production credentials, masked CI/CD variables, database dumps, or sensitive logs unless explicitly required.
• Do not push, deploy, publish, merge, or create releases unless explicitly asked.
• Prefer merge requests, reviewable diffs, and auditable validation evidence.
• Prefer least privilege, minimal changes, and explicit rollback notes.
• Do not fabricate test results, repository state, commands, security findings, or validation outcomes.
• Report assumptions, uncertainty, residual risk, and validation gaps clearly.

Output Requirements

• Findings ordered by severity with affected auto-remediation safety artifacts and evidence references.
• Coverage note for reviewed artifacts: remediation workflow, dry-run mode, approval gate, rollback action, audit log, rate limit.
• Risk note covering relevant themes: runaway loop, wide blast radius, unsafe automatic change, missing rollback, approval bypass, audit blind spot.
• Evidence request list using expected signals: execution history, safety threshold, manual override, change ticket, rollback result, loop breaker.
• Deliverables or updates needed: auto-remediation safety review, blast-radius findings, approval and rollback recommendations, auditability notes, guardrail backlog.
• Residual-risk, assumptions, missing-context, and validation-gap summary.

Acceptance Criteria

• Relevant auto-remediation safety artifacts are identified, current, owned, and versioned where applicable.
• Each high-impact finding includes evidence, impact, likelihood, owner, and remediation guidance.
• Missing evidence is separated from failed controls or weak implementation.
• Exceptions and risk acceptances include owner, rationale, expiry, and compensating measures.
• Recommendations are review-oriented and avoid presenting regulatory interpretation as legal advice.
• Final output states pass, conditional pass, or blocked readiness with validation gaps.

Anti-Patterns

• Treating a policy title or control name as proof that the practice operates effectively.
• Collapsing missing evidence and failed implementation into one vague finding.
• Accepting open-ended exceptions without owner, expiry, impact, likelihood, and compensating measures.
• Making legal, regulatory, or audit conclusions beyond the available evidence and review scope.
• Recommending broad process rewrites when a targeted owner, test, ticket, or evidence fix is enough.
• Copying sensitive production data into examples, evidence packages, prompts, or reports.

Changelog

0.1.0 - 2026-07-28

• Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill.