Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

monitoring-dashboard-audit(监控仪表盘审计)

用于辅助安全审计、权限检查、凭据风险、认证流程和常见漏洞排查。它适合让 Agent 梳理敏感配置、检查依赖风险、分析鉴权逻辑或生成安全复核清单。使用时不能把工具输出直接当最终结论,涉及密钥、令牌、用户数据或生产系统时,应先确认最小权限、脱敏方式和操作边界。

monitoring-dashboard-audit 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为接触敏感数据;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 18,944。

总安装 5,834周安装 236GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 1,831核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

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:monitoring-dashboard-audit(监控仪表盘审计)
来源仓库:https://github.com/vahagn-madatyan/monitoring-dashboard-audit
安装命令:
openclaw skills install monitoring-dashboard-audit
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 monitoring-dashboard-audit

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

monitoring-dashboard-audit 用于辅助安全审计和权限检查,适合在 OpenClaw 中分析监控基础设施时使用。适用于 Grafana 仪表板分析、PromQL 查询验证和警报规则评估。支持 SLA/SLO 报告审查,确保系统合规性。

安装命令为 openclaw skills install monitoring-dashboard-audit,需确认权限范围和维护状态。使用时不能将工具输出直接当作最终结论,涉及生产系统时应先确认最小权限。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install monitoring-dashboard-audit;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要接触敏感数据,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

monitoring-dashboard-audit 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install monitoring-dashboard-audit。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

monitoring-dashboard-audit 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

monitoring-dashboard-audit 需要什么权限?

权限级别是接触敏感数据。该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

monitoring-dashboard-audit 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

monitoring-dashboard-audit 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 5,834 次,近一周安装 236 次,下载 1,831 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

monitoring-dashboard-audit 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。

先想清楚的地方

  • 需要接触敏感数据,装到常用环境前要先评估影响面。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 环境里有大量密钥、凭证,不方便给第三方 Skill 读取的人。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
monitoring-dashboard-audit

监控仪表盘审计 · 本页

5,834—接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

name
monitoring-dashboard-audit
description
>-
license
Apache-2.0
metadata
safety
read-only
author
network-security-skills-suite
version
1.0.0
openclaw
{"emoji":"📊","safetyTier":"read-only","requires":{"bins":[],"env":[]},"tags":["grafana","prometheus","monitoring"],"mcpDependencies":[],"egressEndpoints":[]}

Monitoring Dashboard Audit

Structured assessment of monitoring infrastructure for network operations. Evaluates Grafana dashboards, PromQL query efficiency, alert rule configuration, SLA/SLO reporting accuracy, and Prometheus data source health. This skill reads monitoring configuration and metrics — it does not create, modify, or delete dashboards, alerts, or data sources.

Reference references/cli-reference.md for Grafana and Prometheus API commands organized by audit step, and references/query-reference.md for PromQL patterns covering network interface utilization, error rates, BGP peer state, and SNMP-derived metric evaluation.

When to Use

  • Monitoring gap assessment — verifying that all critical network infrastructure has dashboard coverage and active alerting
  • Dashboard quality review — evaluating whether existing Grafana dashboards present accurate, actionable data to operations teams
  • Alert fatigue investigation — audit when teams report excessive or irrelevant alert notifications that mask genuine incidents
  • SLA/SLO compliance review — validating that error budget calculations and availability metrics reflect actual service delivery
  • Pre-migration monitoring readiness — confirming monitoring will survive infrastructure changes (new devices, topology changes, platform migrations)
  • Post-incident review — assessing whether monitoring detected the incident, how quickly alerts fired, and what gaps allowed silent failures

Prerequisites

  • Grafana access — API token or service account with Viewer role minimum (grafana_url and Authorization: Bearer <token> header confirmed working)
  • Prometheus access — HTTP API reachable at prometheus_url/api/v1/status/config (no authentication required by default, or appropriate auth header configured)
  • Network scope defined — device inventory, subnet ranges, and critical service list available for coverage gap analysis
  • Baseline documentation — existing SLA/SLO targets, expected alert thresholds, and operations runbooks available for comparison
  • Timestamp awareness — confirm NTP synchronization across monitoring stack; Prometheus scrape timestamps and Grafana time range selections depend on consistent clocks

Procedure

Follow these six steps sequentially. Each step produces findings that feed the monitoring coverage scorecard and optimization recommendations in Step 6.

Step 1: Dashboard Inventory

Enumerate all Grafana dashboards to establish the monitoring surface area and identify coverage gaps, stale dashboards, and organizational issues.

Query the Grafana API to list all dashboards with metadata:

GET /api/search?type=dash-db&limit=5000

For each dashboard, record: uid, title, folder, tags, and last-updated timestamp. Identify dashboards not updated in over 180 days as staleness candidates — these may reference deprecated metrics or decommissioned infrastructure.

Examine folder organization. Flat folder structures with 50+ dashboards at root level indicate organizational debt. Check for naming convention adherence — dashboards without consistent prefixes or tags reduce discoverability during incidents.

Retrieve the full JSON model for each dashboard:

GET /api/dashboards/uid/<uid>

Record panel count, data source references, and template variables. Flag dashboards with hardcoded time ranges (no relative time selector) and panels referencing nonexistent data sources — these produce empty panels that erode operator trust.

Build a coverage matrix: map dashboard panels to infrastructure inventory. Devices, interfaces, or services present in inventory but absent from any dashboard represent monitoring blind spots.

Step 2: Panel and Query Analysis

Evaluate PromQL query efficiency, panel threshold configuration, and visualization appropriateness across all dashboards.

Extract all PromQL expressions from dashboard panel JSON targets. For each query, assess:

Rate function usage — rate() requires a range vector at least two scrape intervals wide. Replace irate() in dashboard panels that display trends over long time ranges — irate() only uses the last two data points and is appropriate only for volatile, short-window displays.

Recording rule candidates — Complex queries repeating across multiple dashboards (same expression in 3+ panels) should be recording rules. Identify these by hashing normalized PromQL expressions. Common candidates: interface utilization calculations, error rate ratios, and aggregated availability metrics.

Label cardinality — Queries aggregating across high-cardinality labels without explicit filtering generate expensive computation. Flag queries with no label matchers on high-cardinality metrics and queries using {__name__=~".*"} patterns.

Panel thresholds — Verify gauge and stat panels have threshold values configured. Panels displaying utilization or error rates without color-coded thresholds fail to provide at-a-glance severity. Compare configured thresholds against operational standards (e.g., interface utilization warning at 70%, critical at 90%).

Visualization appropriateness — Time series data on gauge panels loses temporal context. Single-value stats for volatile metrics mislead operators. Table panels with 100+ rows without sorting are unusable during incidents.

Step 3: Alert Rule Validation

Assess alert rule configuration for detection coverage, threshold accuracy, and notification reliability.

Retrieve all alert rules from the Grafana alerting API:

GET /api/v1/provisioning/alert-rules

For Prometheus-native alerting, also query:

GET /api/v1/rules?type=alert

For each alert rule, evaluate:

Threshold appropriateness — Alert thresholds should align with operational impact, not arbitrary percentages. Interface utilization alerts at 50% on a 10Gbps link are premature; at 95% on a 100Mbps WAN link they are late. Cross-reference thresholds against link capacity and historical peak usage from Prometheus.

Evaluation intervals — Alert rules evaluated every 5 minutes cannot detect sub-minute outages. For critical infrastructure (WAN links, core routers), evaluation intervals should match or be less than the Prometheus scrape interval. Flag alert groups where evaluation interval exceeds the scrape interval of the underlying metrics.

Pending and for durations — for: 0s alerts fire on transient spikes and contribute to alert fatigue. for: 30m on critical infrastructure means 30 minutes of unnotified outage. Recommended ranges: Critical alerts for: 2m-5m, Warning alerts for: 5m-15m.

Notification channels — Verify all alert rules have at least one active notification channel. Check channel health — Slack webhooks return 200, PagerDuty keys are valid, email SMTP is reachable.

Routing and silencing — Review Alertmanager routing tree for catch-all routes dumping all alerts to a single channel. Verify silences have expiration times. Active silences without expiration mask ongoing problems indefinitely.

Escalation completeness — Critical alerts should escalate from Slack/email to PagerDuty/phone after acknowledgment timeout. Alert rules with only Slack notification for Critical-severity failures lack escalation depth.

Step 4: SLA/SLO Reporting

Validate that SLA/SLO dashboards and calculations reflect actual service delivery accuracy.

Error budget calculation — Verify the formula: error_budget_remaining = 1 - (actual_errors / allowed_errors). Common mistakes: using the wrong time window (calendar month vs rolling 30 days), excluding planned maintenance from downtime calculations, or computing availability from a single data source when the service spans multiple components.

Availability SLIs — Check that uptime percentage, MTTR (Mean Time to Repair), and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) use correct inputs. Uptime should reference probe-based measurement (blackbox exporter, synthetic checks), not just device-reported status. MTTR excluding detection time understates actual recovery duration.

Burn rate alerting — Multi-window burn rate alerting provides early warning when error budget consumption accelerates. Verify burn rate alerts use at least two windows (e.g., 1-hour and 6-hour). A single-window alert either fires too late or too often. Check that severity maps to budget consumption: a 14.4x burn rate over 1 hour warrants page-level severity.

Multi-window alert patterns — Confirm long-window alerts (6h, 3d) for trend detection and short-window alerts (5m, 1h) for rapid response. Verify severity increases with burn rate magnitude.

Step 5: Data Source Health

Assess Prometheus scrape target status, metric cardinality, retention configuration, and remote write health.

Scrape target status — Query the targets API:

GET /api/v1/targets?state=active

Check the up metric across all scrape targets. Targets with up == 0 are failing to scrape — investigate network reachability, exporter health, or authentication issues. Targets with scrape_duration_seconds exceeding the scrape interval are timing out, producing gaps in metrics and potentially triggering false alerts.

Cardinality assessment — Query TSDB status:

GET /api/v1/status/tsdb

Identify the top 10 metrics by series count. Network environments commonly see cardinality explosion from per-interface SNMP metrics on large chassis devices. Metrics exceeding 10,000 active series per name warrant investigation for label optimization or aggregation.

Retention and storage — Verify retention period covers the longest SLA reporting window. A 15-day retention with 30-day SLA dashboards produces incomplete reports. Check WAL size — a WAL larger than 20% of total TSDB size may indicate write amplification from high churn.

Remote write health — If Prometheus uses remote write (Thanos, Cortex, Mimir, VictoriaMetrics), check remote storage lag metrics. Lag exceeding 5 minutes means long-term store is behind real-time. Flag failed sample counters as write failures creating data gaps.

Metric naming conventions — Verify metrics follow Prometheus naming conventions: snake_case, unit suffixes (_bytes, _seconds, _total), base units. Inconsistent naming makes dashboard authoring error-prone and cross-device comparison unreliable.

Step 6: Monitoring Coverage Report

Compile findings into a structured monitoring coverage scorecard with prioritized optimization recommendations.

Coverage scorecard — Rate each infrastructure category (core routers, distribution switches, WAN links, firewalls, load balancers) on a 1–5 scale: 1 = no monitoring, 2 = basic up/down only, 3 = utilization dashboards, 4 = dashboards with alerting, 5 = dashboards with alerting and SLO tracking.

Alert quality assessment — Compute alert quality metrics: alert-to-incident ratio, mean time to acknowledge, silence frequency per alert rule. High-noise alerts (>80% silenced or acknowledged-without-action) are candidates for threshold adjustment or removal.

PromQL optimization recommendations — For each inefficient query from Step 2, provide current and optimized expressions. Prioritize recording rule creation for queries appearing in 3+ panels.

Threshold Tables

DomainSeverityConditionExample
CoverageCriticalProduction device with zero dashboard panelsCore router absent from all dashboards
CoverageHighService with dashboards but no alertingWAN link monitored but no capacity alert
CoverageMediumDashboard exists but is stale (>180 days)Last-modified date precedes device refresh
CoverageLowDashboard lacks threshold coloringUtilization panel with no warning/critical bands
QueryCriticalPromQL uses absent metric namePanel returns no data due to renamed metric
QueryHighrate() range vector shorter than 2x scrape intervalrate(metric[15s]) with 30s scrape
QueryMediumRepeated query across 3+ panels without recording ruleSame utilization formula in 5 dashboards
QueryLowirate() used for trend display over long time rangeirate() on 24h overview panel
AlertCriticalAlert rule with no notification channelSilent alarm on Critical infrastructure
AlertHighCritical alert with for duration >15m15+ minute detection gap
AlertMediumWarning alert with for duration of 0sTransient spikes cause alert fatigue
AlertLowSingle notification channel with no escalationSlack-only for P1 infrastructure alert
SLACriticalError budget calculation uses wrong time windowCalendar month vs rolling 30d mismatch
SLAHighAvailability SLI excludes detection time from MTTRMTTR underreported by omitting MTTD
SLAMediumSingle-window burn rate alertingOnly 1h window, no long-term trend window
SLALowSLO dashboard missing historical trend comparisonNo month-over-month burn rate trend
DataSourceCriticalScrape target down (up == 0) for >5mSNMP exporter unreachable
DataSourceHighCardinality >10k series per metric namePer-interface metrics on 500-port chassis
DataSourceMediumRemote write lag >5mLong-term store behind real-time
DataSourceLowMetric naming violates Prometheus conventionsCamelCase or missing unit suffix

Decision Trees

Monitoring Audit Entry Point:
├─ Dashboard completeness unknown? → Start at Step 1 (Inventory)
├─ Alert fatigue reported? → Start at Step 3 (Alert Validation)
├─ SLA disputes or inaccurate reports? → Start at Step 4 (SLA/SLO)
├─ Missing metrics or gaps in graphs? → Start at Step 5 (Data Source)
└─ General health check? → Full procedure Steps 1–6

Panel Query Optimization:
├─ Query returns no data?
│  ├─ Metric name exists in TSDB? → Check label matchers
│  └─ Metric absent? → Critical: exporter or scrape config broken
├─ Query is slow (>10s execution)?
│  ├─ High cardinality labels? → Add label matchers or aggregate
│  ├─ Wide time range on raw metric? → Use recording rule
│  └─ Regex label matcher? → Replace with exact match where possible
└─ Query returns unexpected values?
   ├─ rate() on non-counter metric? → Use gauge-appropriate function
   └─ Aggregation missing labels? → Add by/without clause

Alert Threshold Calibration:
├─ Alert never fires? → Threshold too high or metric absent
│  ├─ Metric present and collecting? → Lower threshold based on P95
│  └─ Metric absent? → Fix scrape target first (Step 5)
├─ Alert fires constantly? → Threshold too low or for duration too short
│  ├─ for: 0s? → Add minimum pending duration
│  └─ Threshold below normal baseline? → Raise to P95 + margin
└─ Alert fires but team ignores it? → Alert fatigue
   ├─ >80% silenced? → Remove or retarget alert
   └─ Low signal-to-noise? → Increase for duration or add inhibition rule

Report Template

# Monitoring Dashboard Audit Report

## Executive Summary
- **Scope:** [Grafana instance URL, Prometheus endpoints, device count]
- **Assessment date:** [date]
- **Dashboard count:** [total dashboards / active / stale]
- **Alert rule count:** [total rules / firing / pending / inactive]
- **Coverage score:** [average across infrastructure categories, 1–5 scale]

## Coverage Scorecard
| Category | Dashboards | Alerts | SLOs | Score |
|----------|------------|--------|------|-------|
| Core Routers | [count] | [count] | [Y/N] | [1-5] |
| Distribution | [count] | [count] | [Y/N] | [1-5] |
| WAN Links | [count] | [count] | [Y/N] | [1-5] |
| Firewalls | [count] | [count] | [Y/N] | [1-5] |

## Alert Quality Metrics
| Metric | Value | Target |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Alert-to-incident ratio | [ratio] | <5:1 |
| Mean acknowledgment time | [duration] | <15m |
| Silence frequency (30d) | [count] | decreasing trend |
| Escalation coverage | [%] | 100% for Critical |

## Findings by Severity

### Critical
| # | Domain | Finding | Impact | Recommendation |
|---|--------|---------|--------|----------------|

### High
| # | Domain | Finding | Impact | Recommendation |
|---|--------|---------|--------|----------------|

### Medium / Low
[Grouped findings table]

## PromQL Optimization Recommendations
| Dashboard | Panel | Current Query | Recommended | Cost Reduction |
|-----------|-------|---------------|-------------|----------------|

## SLA/SLO Accuracy Review
| Service | Reported Availability | Validated Availability | Discrepancy |
|---------|----------------------|-----------------------|-------------|

## Appendix
- Full dashboard inventory with staleness dates
- Scrape target health summary
- Cardinality top-10 metrics

Troubleshooting

Grafana API returns 401/403 — Verify the API token has Viewer permissions. Service accounts require Viewer role on all folders containing in-scope dashboards. Admin-level tokens are not required for read-only audit.

Prometheus API unreachable — Check network connectivity and reverse proxy configuration. Verify the base URL includes the correct path prefix if Prometheus runs behind a subpath.

Empty dashboard inventory — Grafana API search returns paginated results. Increase the limit parameter or paginate. Folder-level permissions can hide dashboards from restricted tokens.

PromQL queries reference absent metrics — SNMP exporter metric names change between exporter versions. Check exporter version and generator configuration when dashboards return no data.

Cardinality data not available — The TSDB status endpoint requires Prometheus 2.14+. If unavailable, estimate cardinality using count queries, though these are expensive on large installations.

SLA calculations differ from business reports — Time zone handling is the most common cause. Prometheus stores UTC timestamps. Verify all SLA dashboards use explicit UTC time ranges or a consistent time zone variable.

Alert rules exist in both Grafana and Prometheus — Grafana Unified Alerting coexists with Prometheus-native alerting. Audit both sources to avoid duplicate or conflicting coverage. Document which system is authoritative for each alert category.

平台分布

OpenClaw

89.56%
按下载量换算1,640

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

可疑

Static analysis

通过

权限和风险

接触敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

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。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills