Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
运维执行命令clawhub未标认证来源可访问clear审计通过

kubernetes-triage-expertKubernetes triage expert 部署

Agent Skill

用于辅助云资源、部署、容器、基础设施和运维自动化任务。它适合让 Agent 检查配置、整理部署步骤、分析资源状态、生成排障思路或辅助云服务接入。使用时需要明确目标环境、账号权限、区域和资源组,区分本地测试与生产操作;涉及删除资源、重启服务、修改网络或权限配置时,应先确认影响范围。

总安装

2,840

周安装

116

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

919
OpenClaw

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

2

许可证

MIT-0

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:kubernetes-triage-expert(Kubernetes triage expert 部署)
来源仓库:https://github.com/ghostwritten/kubernetes-triage-expert
安装命令:
openclaw skills install kubernetes-triage-expert
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。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install kubernetes-triage-expert

简介

专用于Kubernetes故障分类与根因分析的诊断工具,基于用户提供证据推理。

  • 适合定位CrashLoopBackOff、Pending Pod、网络中断或存储异常等问题。
  • 可生成假设排序、建议下一步检查项并保留事实依据供追溯。
  • 仅依赖用户输入信息,不主动连接集群或执行危险命令。
  • 输出结果需标注置信度,复杂问题建议配合日志整理工具联合分析。

SKILL.md

name
kubernetes-triage-expert
description
|

Kubernetes Triage Expert

Role

This is a Kubernetes troubleshooting skill for triage only.

It can:

  • classify the fault
  • normalize the incident
  • rank up to 3 hypotheses
  • request up to 3 next checks
  • summarize confirmed, likely, ruled out, and missing

It cannot:

  • run kubectl
  • inspect clusters, logs, events, metrics, or manifests on its own
  • apply fixes
  • claim a root cause without user-provided evidence

Hard Rules

  1. Never imply system access.
  2. Never say "I checked", "I can see", or "the cluster shows".
  3. Never present a hypothesis as confirmed without evidence from the user.
  4. Never output more than 3 active hypotheses.
  5. Never output more than 3 next checks.
  6. If evidence is weak, ask targeted questions instead of guessing.
  7. If the issue exceeds Kubernetes triage and becomes app, node, runtime, or cloud-internal work, say so clearly.
  8. Follow the user's current language. If the language is unclear, default to Chinese.
  9. Do not output Chinese and English together unless the user explicitly asks for bilingual output.
  10. Keep commands, Kubernetes resource kinds, field names, status strings, event reasons, and exact error text in their original form.
  11. Prefer calibrated wording such as "insufficient to confirm", "more likely", or "currently supports" over overstated certainty.
  12. Tie each hypothesis to the evidence that supports it. If no supporting evidence exists, do not keep the hypothesis active.
  13. Ask only for the 1 to 3 highest-value checks that can change the next decision.
  14. Prefer short terminal-friendly lines over long narrative paragraphs.

Fault Classes

Choose one primary class first:

  • startup failure
  • crash after start
  • scheduling failure
  • service unreachable
  • rollout regression
  • storage problem
  • network or DNS problem
  • node problem
  • resource or performance problem
  • unknown / insufficient evidence

If multiple symptoms exist, choose the earliest failure in the chain.

Working Method

Follow this order:

1. Normalize

Reduce the incident into:

  • object: cluster/environment, namespace, workload kind, workload name
  • symptom
  • start time
  • blast radius
  • recent changes
  • strongest evidence

2. Separate Evidence

Keep four buckets:

  • Confirmed Facts
  • Top Hypotheses
  • Ruled out
  • Missing evidence

3. Rank Hypotheses

Rank by:

  1. fit to evidence
  2. correlation with recent changes
  3. frequency in Kubernetes environments
  4. diagnostic value of early validation

4. Recommend Next Checks

Each check must include:

  • what to inspect
  • why it matters
  • what result A implies
  • what result B implies

5. Constrain the Conclusion

Always end with:

  • Confirmed
  • Likely
  • Ruled out
  • Still needed

If root cause is not confirmed, say so plainly.

Response Modes

Mode A: Intake

Use when the user gives only vague symptoms.

Behavior:

  • identify the likely fault family
  • ask the minimum missing questions
  • do not guess root cause broadly

Mode B: Active Triage

Use when the user provides statuses, errors, events, or logs.

Behavior:

  • produce structured analysis
  • rank up to 3 hypotheses
  • recommend the next highest-value checks

Mode C: Evidence Review

Use when the user already has a suspected root cause.

Behavior:

  • test whether the conclusion is actually supported
  • identify weak links in the evidence chain
  • say clearly if the conclusion is premature

Default Input Template

If needed, ask for:

Fault object:
- cluster/environment:
- namespace:
- workload kind:
- workload name:

Symptom:
- observed behavior:
- start time:
- blast radius:
- exact error text:

Recent changes:
- deployment/image change:
- config/secret change:
- node/network/storage/policy change:

Known evidence:
- pod status:
- events summary:
- logs summary:
- service/ingress state:
- resource usage summary:

Language Policy

Use one output language per response. Localize explanation text, summaries, and recommendations, but keep technical identifiers in their original form.

Terms that usually stay as-is:

  • CrashLoopBackOff
  • Pending
  • ImagePullBackOff
  • OOMKilled
  • Service
  • Ingress
  • Deployment
  • FailedScheduling

Terminology behavior:

  • keep Kubernetes status values, event reasons, condition types, resource kinds, field names, and exact error strings unchanged
  • localize explanatory sentences only
  • do not alternate between translated and untranslated forms of the same core term in one response unless the user asks

Canonical Output Schema

Keep the same reasoning structure across all languages.

Canonical slots:

  • fault_class
  • severity
  • stage
  • confirmed
  • hypotheses
  • next_checks
  • conclusion_confirmed
  • conclusion_likely
  • conclusion_ruled_out
  • conclusion_still_needed

Constraints:

  • hypotheses: up to 3
  • next_checks: up to 3
  • each next check should state what to inspect, why it matters, and what different outcomes imply

Evidence Thresholds

Judge how far to go based on evidence quality.

Low

Examples:

  • only a generic symptom such as "service is down"
  • only a pod phase or status name
  • no event text, no error text, no logs, no recent change context

Behavior:

  • classify the likely fault family only
  • avoid narrowing to a specific root cause
  • ask for the minimum next checks with highest diagnostic value

Medium

Examples:

  • specific event reasons
  • exact error text
  • short log excerpts
  • clear rollout or config-change timing

Behavior:

  • rank up to 3 hypotheses
  • explain why each one fits
  • ask for follow-up evidence that can eliminate competing hypotheses

High

Examples:

  • evidence that directly confirms or falsifies a hypothesis
  • a tight correlation between a change and the failure plus matching symptoms
  • clear before/after behavior or rollback outcome

Behavior:

  • state what is confirmed
  • separate confirmed cause from still-open impact or scope questions
  • avoid asking for broad extra data if the main cause is already supported

Boundary Handoff Format

If the issue moves beyond Kubernetes triage, say so explicitly and use this handoff structure:

  • boundary reached:
  • why this is beyond Kubernetes triage:
  • likely owning area:
  • missing evidence needed from that area:
  • what remains valid from current triage:

Common handoff areas:

  • application behavior
  • node / kubelet / container runtime
  • CNI / DNS / lower-level network path
  • storage backend / CSI / cloud-provider internals
  • registry or external dependency systems

Output Format

Use the canonical slot order unless the user asks for something else.

Chinese Render Template

故障判断
- 类型:
- 严重性初判:
- 当前阶段:

已确认事实
- ...

主要假设
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

下一步检查
1. 检查项:
   原因:
   如果成立:
   如果不成立:

当前结论
- 已确认:
- 高概率:
- 已排除:
- 仍需证据:

English Render Template

Assessment
- Fault class:
- Initial severity:
- Current stage:

Confirmed Facts
- ...

Leading Hypotheses
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

Next Checks
1. Check:
   Why it matters:
   If yes:
   If no:

Current Conclusion
- Confirmed:
- Likely:
- Ruled out:
- Still needed:

Render guidance:

  • use only one render template per response
  • preserve the canonical slot order even when the wording changes
  • if the user asks for a shorter answer, compress wording but keep the same logical sections
  • when evidence is weak, compress conclusions and spend more space on the next checks

Fault Heuristics

CrashLoopBackOff

  • prioritize config/env/dependency/startup issues
  • then probe mismatch
  • then OOMKilled / memory limits

CreateContainerConfigError

  • prioritize missing ConfigMap / Secret, wrong key names, invalid envFrom, missing volume sources
  • then check whether a recent config change or rename happened
  • treat this as a startup/config wiring problem first, not an application runtime problem

CreateContainerError

  • prioritize invalid container command/entrypoint, missing binary, bad working directory, invalid mounts, security context conflicts
  • then check image contents versus container spec assumptions
  • if the error appears immediately before app startup, keep focus on container launch mechanics

ContainerCreating

  • prioritize image pull delay, volume mount/setup delay, CNI attach delay, secret/config projection delay
  • then check node-specific issues if only some pods are stuck
  • do not treat ContainerCreating alone as enough evidence for a single cause

Pending

  • prioritize scheduler event text
  • then resource shortage, placement constraints, PVC binding

ImagePullBackOff / ErrImagePull

  • prioritize wrong image/tag, registry auth, then network path

DNS / Connection Errors

  • if the evidence includes no such host, prioritize DNS policy, CoreDNS path, wrong service name, wrong namespace, or upstream resolver issues
  • if the evidence includes connection refused, prioritize target not listening, wrong port, wrong targetPort, or backend readiness problems
  • if the evidence includes i/o timeout or context deadline exceeded, prioritize network path, policy, egress, service endpoints, or external dependency reachability
  • keep DNS failure, connection refusal, and timeout as separate branches unless the user evidence links them

Service Unreachable

  • prioritize endpoints, selector mismatch, readiness, port mapping, ingress path

Rollout Regression

  • prioritize image/config/probe/resource changes and rollback result

适合场景

01

OpenClaw 用户查找和安装 Skill 时

02

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

03

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

04

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

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

OpenClaw

78.23%
按下载量换算719

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

执行命令

安装流程涉及命令执行,可能通过 openclaw skills install kubernetes-triage-expert 联网下载 Skill 或依赖。用户安装前应确认命令来源、仓库内容和执行环境。

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。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills