huyngopt1994 Infrastructure Review & DevOps Auditor
Use this skill when the user wants a holistic infrastructure and DevOps audit that spans repositories, IaC directories, CI/CD workflows, runtime configurations, or platform guardrails. This skill combines lessons from AWS Well-Architected, Azure Well-Architected, Google Cloud Architecture Center/DORA guidance, and Google SRE practices.
Outcomes
- Produce code-review style findings that cite the exact file/line, risk, and fix
- Check pipelines, IaC, and runtime manifests for least-privilege IAM and secure defaults
- Highlight OWASP Top 10 issues when pipelines or infrastructure touch application security controls (e.g., ingress, WAF, secrets flows)
- Validate that infrastructure aligns with cloud well-architected pillars: security, reliability, operational excellence, performance, cost, and sustainability
- Explain the DevOps maturity gaps (observability, release safety, incident response) with pragmatic next steps
Where This Fits In The Flow
- Use near the end (pre-merge/release) as a cross-cutting quality gate.
- Use earlier when you need an initial baseline audit to inform
infra-kit.workflowplan.mdrisk/mitigation sections.
Workflow
- Gather scope: repos or directories, environments, clouds, and compliance goals.
- Pull the latest context locally: prefer
gh pr checkout <id>for remote reviews so diffs match reality. - Map components to pillars:
- Security/IAM, network, secrets
- Reliability/SLOs, failover, chaos tests
- Cost/efficiency (e.g., Spot usage, autoscaling)
- Operational excellence (runbooks, incident hygiene)
- Review IaC/manifest files first, then CI/CD workflows, then runtime policies.
- Trace data, identity, and release paths end-to-end to uncover hidden privilege or compliance drift.
- Evaluate application-facing controls with an OWASP Top 10 lens (injection, auth, secrets storage, logging, SSRF, etc.).
- Classify each issue by severity, impact, and remediation. Reference the source framework (AWS/Azure/GCP/SRE/OWASP) when relevant.
- Summarize open risks plus the validation commands or evidence collected.
Hallucination Guardrails
- Tie every finding to the exact file, line, or command output inspected so audits stay rooted in real evidence instead of hypothetical configurations.
- Cite the specific framework (AWS Well-Architected pillar, Azure equivalent, Google SRE, OWASP) that backs guidance; do not invoke generic "best practice" without attribution.
- Call out missing data—repos, environments, credentials, runtime visibility—and either pause for clarification or mark the assumption rather than filling gaps with invented architecture details.
- List every tool or command that actually ran and explicitly state when something (tflint, checkov, kubeconform, etc.) could not execute so the user knows the review relied on static analysis.
Authoring Rules
- Link every finding to a concrete location and show failing configuration snippets.
- Default IAM advice to least privilege across AWS IAM, GCP IAM, Kubernetes RBAC, GitHub permissions, and CI tokens.
- Prefer automated guardrails (policy-as-code, OPA, pre-commit,
pre-commit run --all-files,tflint,kubeconform,actionlint) over manual review checklists. - Require reproducible security controls for secrets (sealed secrets, Secret Manager, HashiCorp Vault) rather than inline credentials.
- Enforce strong supply-chain controls: pinned action SHAs, verified OCI/Helm signatures, artifact attestations where possible.
- Highlight OWASP Top 10 categories explicitly when findings map to them.
- Note cost levers such as Spot/preemptible GKE node pools for non-prod, autoscaler limits, and idle resource cleanup.
Review Priorities
- Identity & Access: orphaned admin roles, broad service accounts, missing workload identity bindings.
- Secrets & Supply Chain: plaintext secrets, missing rotation, unsigned artifacts, unpinned actions/modules.
- Network & Data Protection: open ingress, missing TLS, unrestricted egress, weak transit/storage encryption.
- Pipeline Safety: missing required checks, lack of
concurrency, env approvals, or artifact promotion steps. - Reliability & Observability: absent SLOs, no health checks, flaky rollouts without canaries, no incident process.
- Cost & Sustainability: unused resources, oversized instances, no Spot/preemptible usage for test/non-prod, missing cleanup automation.
- OWASP Alignment: SSRF risk via metadata exposure, broken auth/session handling, insecure deserialization, insufficient logging/monitoring, etc.
Validation Loop
Use repo-specific tooling first. Otherwise consider:
terraform fmt -recursive && terraform validate
terragrunt hcl fmt && terragrunt validate
kubeconform -strict <rendered-manifests>
helm lint <chart>
actionlint .github/workflows/*.yml
gh workflow view <workflow>
pre-commit run --all-files
trivy config .
checkov -d .
When tooling cannot run (missing creds, network), explain what was skipped and rely on static inspection.
Best-Practice References
- AWS Well-Architected Framework (security, reliability, performance, cost, sustainability)
- Azure Well-Architected Framework pillars
- Google Cloud Architecture Center DevOps/DORA technical capabilities
- Google SRE Book (SLOs, incident response, postmortems, automation)
- OWASP Top 10 (injection, auth failures, sensitive data exposure, SSRF, etc.)
Delivery Standard
Always provide:
- Audit scope and assumptions
- Files or workflows reviewed and validation commands executed
- Findings grouped by severity with OWASP/WAF pillar references where applicable
- Actionable remediation steps and remaining risks if the user cannot implement certain changes immediately