Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

chaos-engineer混沌工程师

Agent Skill

chaos-engineer 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

2,046

周安装

87

GitHub Stars

76

下载量

717
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

3

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:chaos-engineer(混沌工程师)
来源仓库:https://github.com/404kidwiz/claude-supercode-skills
仓库路径:skills/chaos-engineer
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/404kidwiz/claude-supercode-skills --skill chaos-engineer
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/404kidwiz/claude-supercode-skills --skill chaos-engineer

简介

chaos-engineer 提供容错测试与混沌工程专长,专注于故障注入、受控实验和抗脆弱系统设计。

  • 验证系统韧性,测试故障转移机制、告警管道与自动化混沌实验,支持游戏日演练。
  • 在发布前验证系统韧性、调试分布式系统疑难问题时调用此技能。
  • 安装命令:npx skills add https://github.com/404kidwiz/claude-supercode-skills --skill chaos-engineer
  • 建议确认权限范围与维护状态,注意是否触发联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。

SKILL.md

Chaos Engineer

Purpose

Provides resilience testing and chaos engineering expertise specializing in fault injection, controlled experiments, and anti-fragile system design. Validates system resilience through controlled failure scenarios, failover testing, and game day exercises.

When to Use

  • Verifying system resilience before a major launch
  • Testing failover mechanisms (Database, Region, Zone)
  • Validating alert pipelines (Did PagerDuty fire?)
  • Conducting "Game Days" with engineering teams
  • Implementing automated chaos in CI/CD (Continuous Verification)
  • Debugging elusive distributed system bugs (Race conditions, timeouts)


2. Decision Framework

Experiment Design Matrix

What are we testing?
│
├─ **Infrastructure Layer**
│  ├─ Pods/Containers? → **Pod Kill / Container Crash**
│  ├─ Nodes? → **Node Drain / Reboot**
│  └─ Network? → **Latency / Packet Loss / Partition**
│
├─ **Application Layer**
│  ├─ Dependencies? → **Block Access to DB/Redis**
│  ├─ Resources? → **CPU/Memory Stress**
│  └─ Logic? → **Inject HTTP 500 / Delays**
│
└─ **Platform Layer**
   ├─ IAM? → **Revoke Keys**
   └─ DNS? → **Block DNS Resolution**

Tool Selection

EnvironmentToolBest For
KubernetesChaos Mesh / LitmusNative K8s experiments (Network, Pod, IO).
AWS/CloudAWS FIS / GremlinCloud-level faults (AZ outage, EC2 stop).
Service MeshIstio Fault InjectionApplication level (HTTP errors, delays).
Java/SpringChaos Monkey for SpringApp-level logic attacks.

Blast Radius Control

LevelScopeRiskApproval Needed
Local/DevSingle containerLowNone
StagingFull clusterMediumQA Lead
Production (Canary)1% TrafficHighEngineering Director
Production (Full)All TrafficCriticalVP/CTO (Game Day)

Red Flags → Escalate to sre-engineer:

  • No "Stop Button" mechanism available
  • Observability gaps (Blind spots)
  • Cascading failure risk identified without mitigation
  • Lack of backups for stateful data experiments


4. Core Workflows

Workflow 1: Kubernetes Pod Chaos (Chaos Mesh)

Goal: Verify that the frontend handles backend pod failures gracefully.

Steps:

  1. Define Experiment (backend-kill.yaml) apiVersion: chaos-mesh.org/v1alpha1 kind: PodChaos metadata: name: backend-kill namespace: chaos-testing spec: action: pod-kill mode: one selector: namespaces: - prod labelSelectors: app: backend-service duration: "30s" scheduler: cron: "@every 1m"
  2. Define Hypothesis

- *If* a backend pod dies, *then* Kubernetes will restart it within 5 seconds, *and* the frontend will retry 500s seamlessly (< 1% error rate).

  1. Execute & Monitor

- Apply manifest. - Watch Grafana dashboard: "HTTP 500 Rate" vs "Pod Restart Count".

  1. Verification

- Did the pod restart? Yes. - Did users see errors? No (Retries worked). - Result: PASS.



Workflow 3: Zone Outage Simulation (Game Day)

Goal: Verify database failover to secondary region.

Steps:

  1. Preparation

- Notify on-call team (Game Day). - Ensure primary DB writes are active.

  1. Execution (AWS FIS / Manual)

- Block network traffic to Zone A subnets. - OR Stop RDS Primary instance (Simulate crash).

  1. Measurement

- Measure RTO (Recovery Time Objective): How long until Secondary becomes Primary? (Target: < 60s). - Measure RPO (Recovery Point Objective): Any data lost? (Target: 0).



5. Anti-Patterns & Gotchas

❌ Anti-Pattern 1: Testing in Production First

What it looks like:

  • Running a "delete database" script in prod without testing in staging.

Why it fails:

  • Catastrophic data loss.
  • Resume Generating Event (RGE).

Correct approach:

  • Dev → Staging → Canary → Prod.
  • Verify hypothesis in lower environments first.

❌ Anti-Pattern 2: No Observability

What it looks like:

  • Running chaos without dashboards open.
  • "I think it worked, the app is slow."

Why it fails:

  • You don't know *why* it failed.
  • You can't prove resilience.

Correct approach:

  • Observability First: If you can't measure it, don't break it.

❌ Anti-Pattern 3: Random Chaos (Chaos Monkey Style)

What it looks like:

  • Killing random things constantly without purpose.

Why it fails:

  • Causes alert fatigue.
  • Doesn't test specific failure modes (e.g., network partition vs crash).

Correct approach:

  • Thoughtful Experiments: Design targeted scenarios (e.g., "What if Redis is slow?"). Random chaos is for *maintenance*, targeted chaos is for *verification*.


7. Quality Checklist

Planning:

  • Hypothesis: Clearly defined ("If X happens, Y should occur").
  • Blast Radius: Limited (e.g., 1 zone, 1% users).
  • Approval: Stakeholders notified (or scheduled Game Day).

Safety:

  • Stop Button: Automated abort script ready.
  • Rollback: Plan to restore state if needed.
  • Backup: Data backed up before stateful experiments.

Execution:

  • Monitoring: Dashboards visible during experiment.
  • Logging: Experiment start/end times logged for correlation.

Review:

  • Fix: Action items assigned (Jira).
  • Report: Findings shared with engineering team.

Examples

Example 1: Kubernetes Pod Failure Recovery

Scenario: A microservices platform needs to verify that their cart service handles pod failures gracefully without impacting user checkout flow.

Experiment Design:

  1. Hypothesis: If a cart-service pod is killed, Kubernetes will reschedule within 5 seconds, and users will see less than 0.1% error rate
  2. Chaos Injection: Use Chaos Mesh to kill random pods in the production namespace
  3. Monitoring: Track error rates, pod restart times, and user-facing failures

Execution Results:

  • Pod restart time: 3.2 seconds average (within SLA)
  • Error rate during experiment: 0.02% (below 0.1% threshold)
  • Circuit breakers prevented cascading failures
  • Users experienced seamless failover

Lessons Learned:

  • Retry logic was working but needed exponential backoff
  • Added fallback response for stale cart data
  • Created runbook for pod failure scenarios

Example 2: Database Failover Validation

Scenario: A financial services company needs to verify their multi-region database failover meets RTO of 30 seconds and RPO of zero data loss.

Game Day Setup:

  1. Preparation: Notified all stakeholders, backed up current state
  2. Primary Zone Blockage: Used AWS FIS to simulate zone failure
  3. Failover Trigger: Automated failover initiated when health checks failed
  4. Measurement: Tracked RTO, RPO, and application recovery

Measured Results:

MetricTargetActualStatus
RTO< 30s18s✅ PASS
RPO0 data0 data✅ PASS
Application recovery< 60s42s✅ PASS
Data consistency100%100%✅ PASS

Improvements Identified:

  • DNS TTL was too high (5 minutes), reduced to 30 seconds
  • Application connection pooling needed pre-warming
  • Added health check for database replication lag

Example 3: Third-Party API Dependency Testing

Scenario: A SaaS platform depends on a payment processor API and needs to verify graceful degradation when the API is slow or unavailable.

Fault Injection Strategy:

  1. Delay Injection: Using Istio to add 5-10 second delays to payment API calls
  2. Timeout Validation: Verify circuit breakers open within configured timeouts
  3. Fallback Testing: Ensure users see appropriate error messages

Test Scenarios:

  • 50% of requests delayed 10s: Circuit breaker opens, fallback shown
  • 100% delay: System degrades gracefully with queue-based processing
  • Recovery: System reconnects properly after fault cleared

Results:

  • Circuit breaker threshold: 5 consecutive failures (needed adjustment)
  • Fallback UI: 94% of users completed purchase via alternative method
  • Alert tuning: Reduced false positives by tuning latency thresholds

Best Practices

Experiment Design

  • Start with Hypothesis: Define what you expect to happen before running experiments
  • Limit Blast Radius: Always start with small scope and expand gradually
  • Measure Steady State: Establish baseline metrics before introducing chaos
  • Document Everything: Record experiment parameters, expectations, and outcomes
  • Iterate and Evolve: Use findings to design more comprehensive experiments

Safety and Controls

  • Always Have a Stop Button: Can you abort the experiment immediately?
  • Define Rollback Plan: How do you restore normal operations?
  • Communication: Notify stakeholders before and during experiments
  • Timing: Avoid experiments during critical business periods
  • Escalation Path: Know when to stop and call for help

Tool Selection

  • Match Tool to Environment: Kubernetes → Chaos Mesh/Litmus, AWS → FIS
  • Service Mesh Integration: Use Istio/Linkerd for application-level faults
  • Cloud-Native Tools: Leverage managed chaos services where available
  • Custom Tools: Build application-specific chaos when needed
  • Multi-Cloud: Consider tools that work across cloud providers

Observability Integration

  • Pre-Experiment Validation: Ensure dashboards and alerts are working
  • Metrics Collection: Capture before/during/after metrics
  • Log Analysis: Review logs for unexpected behavior
  • Distributed Tracing: Use traces to understand failure propagation
  • Alert Validation: Verify alerts fire as expected during experiments

Cultural Aspects

  • Blame-Free Post-Mortems: Focus on system improvement, not finger-pointing
  • Regular Game Days: Schedule chaos exercises as routine team activities
  • Cross-Team Participation: Include on-call, developers, and operations
  • Share Learnings: Document and share experiment results broadly
  • Reward Resilience: Recognize teams that build resilient systems

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

能力 5

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

28.06%
按下载量换算201

OpenCode

22.3%
按下载量换算160

Codex

17.73%
按下载量换算127

Cursor

12.59%
按下载量换算90

Gemini CLI

7.44%
按下载量换算53

windsurf

3.27%
按下载量换算23

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills