slo-error-budget
GitHub用于为服务定义SLO和错误预算策略。通过收集关键输入，生成包含SLI定义、目标计算、错误预算政策及告警机制的完整文档，平衡可靠性与交付速度。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill slo-error-budget -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "slo-error-budget",
"description": "Define Service Level Objectives (SLOs) and an error budget policy for a service. Use when asked to write SLOs, define SLIs, calculate an error budget, set reliability targets, or create an error budget policy. Produces a complete SLO document with SLI definitions, target calculation, error budget policy, burn rate alerts, and review cadence."
}
SLO and Error Budget Skill
Produce a complete, implementable SLO document for a service — covering what to measure, what target to set, how to calculate the error budget, and what to do when it burns.
A good SLO is not a target to hit. It is an agreement about what reliability means for your users — and a framework for making principled trade-offs between reliability and velocity.
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not already provided:
- Service name and brief description of what it does
- Primary users — who depends on this service and how
- User-facing interactions to protect — e.g. API calls, page loads, transactions
- Current reliability data — error rate, latency, uptime (last 30–90 days if available)
- Existing on-call setup — who responds to alerts?
- Deployment frequency — how often does the team ship?
- Any existing SLAs with customers — these constrain SLO targets
Key Definitions
Always establish these before writing the SLO:
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| SLI (Service Level Indicator) | The metric being measured — e.g. "% of requests completing successfully in <500ms" |
| SLO (Service Level Objective) | The target for that metric — e.g. "99.5% of requests" |
| SLA (Service Level Agreement) | The contractual commitment to customers — must be looser than the SLO |
| Error budget | The allowed headroom below 100% — the budget for planned and unplanned downtime |
| Burn rate | How fast the error budget is being consumed |
Output Format
SLO Document: [Service Name]
Service: [Name] | Team: [Team name] Owner: [Name / role] | Approved by: [Name] Effective date: [Date] | Review date: [Date + 3 months] Version: [1.0]
Why This SLO Exists
[2–3 sentences. What reliability problem are we solving? What was happening before this SLO that made us need it? What decision-making does this SLO enable?]
Service Overview
What this service does: [One sentence] Who depends on it: [Internal teams / external customers / both — describe] Critical user journeys protected by this SLO:
- [Journey 1 — e.g. "User completes a payment"]
- [Journey 2]
- [Journey 3]
SLIs — What We Measure
Define one SLI per user journey or reliability dimension. Keep it to 3–5 SLIs maximum.
SLI 1: [Name — e.g. Request Success Rate]
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| What it measures | [e.g. "% of API requests that return a non-5xx response"] |
| Good event definition | [e.g. "HTTP response with status 2xx or 4xx, completed within 500ms"] |
| Bad event definition | [e.g. "HTTP response with status 5xx, or any response taking >500ms"] |
| Measurement source | [e.g. "Application load balancer access logs / Datadog APM / Prometheus"] |
| Measured over | Rolling 28-day window |
| Exclusions | [e.g. "Health check endpoints excluded / Requests during planned maintenance excluded"] |
SLI 2: [Name — e.g. Latency]
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| What it measures | [e.g. "P99 response time for the /checkout endpoint"] |
| Good event definition | [e.g. "Request completes in ≤500ms at P99"] |
| Bad event definition | [e.g. "Request takes >500ms at P99"] |
| Measurement source | [Source] |
| Measured over | Rolling 28-day window |
| Exclusions | [Any exclusions] |
SLI 3: [Name — e.g. Data Freshness / Queue Depth / etc.]
[Same structure]
SLO Targets
| SLI | Target | Window | Error Budget |
|---|---|---|---|
| [SLI 1 name] | [X]% | 28-day rolling | [100 - X]% = [Y minutes/month] |
| [SLI 2 name] | [X]% | 28-day rolling | [100 - X]% = [Y minutes/month] |
| [SLI 3 name] | [X]% | 28-day rolling | [100 - X]% = [Y minutes/month] |
How targets were set:
- Historical baseline (last 90 days): [X]%
- Target is set [above / at] historical baseline to [improve reliability / reflect current reality while formalising the commitment]
- Rationale: [1–2 sentences]
What 100% is NOT the target: [Brief explanation of why targeting 100% is counterproductive — it discourages feature development and doesn't reflect user reality]
Error Budget Calculation
For SLI 1 ([Name]), at [X]% target:
Error budget = (100% - SLO target) × measurement window
= (100% - [X]%) × 28 days × 24 hours × 60 minutes
= [Y]% × [Z total minutes]
= [N] minutes of allowed failure per 28-day window
In plain terms: We can afford [N] minutes of [bad events] in any rolling 28-day window before we breach the SLO.
Burn Rate Alerts
Burn rate = how fast the error budget is being consumed relative to the budget window. A burn rate of 1 = consuming the budget at exactly the rate that would exhaust it over 28 days.
| Alert | Burn rate | Window | Severity | Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Page (critical) | >14× | 1 hour | P1 | Page on-call immediately — budget exhausted in <2 hours |
| Page (high) | >6× | 6 hours | P2 | Page on-call — budget exhausted in <5 days |
| Ticket (warning) | >3× | 3 days | P3 | Create ticket — review at next team meeting |
| Info | >1× | 28 days | Info | Log only — budget on track to exhaust by end of window |
Alert implementation: [Link to alert config in monitoring tool — e.g. Datadog, Prometheus/Alertmanager, Grafana]
Error Budget Policy
This policy defines what to do with the error budget — both when it's healthy and when it's burning.
When budget is healthy (>50% remaining)
- Feature development and deployments proceed at normal pace
- The team may take on riskier experiments
- Reliability improvements are scheduled but not urgent
When budget is at risk (25–50% remaining)
- Deployment frequency reduced — team ships only well-tested changes
- One reliability improvement added to current sprint
- Weekly error budget review added to team standup
When budget is nearly exhausted (<25% remaining)
- Feature work paused in favour of reliability improvements
- No new deployments without explicit on-call approval
- Daily review of error budget burn rate
- CSM / support notified to manage customer expectations
When budget is exhausted (0% remaining — SLO breached)
- All feature work stops
- On-call engineer and engineering manager notified immediately
- Post-incident review (PIR) required within 5 business days
- SLO target may be temporarily relaxed (with stakeholder approval) while root cause is addressed
Dashboard and Reporting
SLO dashboard: [Link to Datadog / Grafana / etc. dashboard]
Metrics exposed:
- Current SLO compliance (rolling 28-day)
- Error budget remaining (% and minutes)
- Burn rate (current and trend)
- Incident count and MTTR this window
Reporting cadence:
| Audience | Frequency | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering team | Weekly | Slack summary — #[service]-slo |
| Engineering manager | Monthly | SLO review meeting |
| Stakeholders / customers | Quarterly | SLO compliance summary |
Exclusions and Edge Cases
Planned maintenance: Error budget is not consumed during pre-announced maintenance windows. Maintenance must be communicated [X hours] in advance via [channel].
Dependency failures: If SLO breach is caused by an upstream dependency outside our control, document it — but it still counts against our error budget (our users don't distinguish between our failures and our dependencies' failures).
Force majeure: [Policy for cloud provider outages, major infrastructure events]
SLO Review Cadence
| Review | When | Who | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error budget review | Weekly | Team | Budget health check — adjust if burning fast |
| SLO target review | Quarterly | Team + EM | Adjust targets if baseline has shifted significantly |
| Annual SLO audit | Annually | Team + Stakeholders | Review SLIs — are we measuring the right things? |
When to change the SLO target:
- Historical baseline has improved significantly and target no longer reflects real reliability
- User feedback indicates the target is misaligned with what users actually experience
- The SLO is being gamed (metric is healthy but users are unhappy)
Quality Checks
- SLIs are user-facing — they measure what users experience, not internal system metrics
- Good and bad events are precisely defined — no ambiguity about what counts
- Targets are based on historical data, not aspirational round numbers
- Error budget policy has clear triggers and clear actions — not "discuss as a team"
- Burn rate alerts have different windows to catch both fast burns and slow burns
- Exclusions are documented so they don't silently inflate the SLO number
Anti-Patterns
- Do not set SLO targets at 100% — this discourages feature development and does not reflect how users experience reliability
- Do not measure internal system metrics as SLIs — SLIs must reflect what users directly experience, not internal CPU or memory
- Do not write an error budget policy with vague triggers — "discuss as a team" is not an actionable policy; triggers must be specific percentages
- Do not base targets on aspirational round numbers — always derive from historical baseline data
- Do not configure only one burn-rate alert window — a single window misses both fast burns and slow burns that exhaust the budget quietly
Version History
- a38bc30 Current 2026-07-05 11:19
