mcpbeat

Waf Assessment

thomast1906/waf-assessment

Assess Azure architectures against Well-Architected Framework (WAF) five pillars - Reliability, Security, Cost Optimization, Operational Excellence, and Performance Efficiency. Provide scores and recommendations.

2k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
192
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/thomast1906/github-copilot-agent-skills --skill waf-assessment

The instruction itself

14 sections, as written by the author

Well-Architected Framework Assessment Skill

Evaluate Azure architectures against Microsoft's Well-Architected Framework (WAF) five pillars to identify strengths, risks, and improvement opportunities.

When to Use

  • Assess existing or proposed Azure architectures
  • Validate designs meet WAF best practices
  • Identify architectural risks and gaps
  • Provide scored assessment with recommendations
  • Review before production deployment

Five Pillars Overview

1. Reliability

Ability of the system to recover from failures and continue functioning.

  • Focus: Availability, resiliency, disaster recovery, health monitoring

2. Security

Protecting applications and data from threats.

  • Focus: Identity, network security, encryption, secrets management

3. Cost Optimization

Managing costs to maximize value delivered.

  • Focus: Right-sizing, reserved instances, monitoring, waste elimination

4. Operational Excellence

Operations processes that keep a system running in production.

  • Focus: IaC, CI/CD, monitoring, incident response, automation

5. Performance Efficiency

Ability of a system to adapt to changes in load.

  • Focus: Scaling, caching, CDN, resource selection, optimization

Assessment Process

Step 1: Analyze Architecture

Review the architecture for each pillar:

Reliability Checklist:

  • [ ] Availability Zones configured?
  • [ ] Multi-region deployment for critical workloads?
  • [ ] Health checks and monitoring configured?
  • [ ] Auto-healing and circuit breakers implemented?
  • [ ] Backup strategy defined with RPO/RTO?
  • [ ] Disaster recovery plan documented?

Security Checklist:

  • [ ] Managed identities used (no credentials in code)?
  • [ ] Private endpoints for PaaS services?
  • [ ] HTTPS only with TLS 1.2+?
  • [ ] Network security groups with least privilege?
  • [ ] Key Vault for secrets management?
  • [ ] Azure AD authentication and RBAC configured?
  • [ ] Data encrypted at rest and in transit?

Cost Optimization Checklist:

  • [ ] Resources right-sized for actual usage?
  • [ ] Auto-scaling configured?
  • [ ] Reserved instances considered for predictable workloads?
  • [ ] Storage tiering implemented (Hot/Cool/Archive)?
  • [ ] Unused resources identified?
  • [ ] Cost monitoring and alerts configured?

Operational Excellence Checklist:

  • [ ] Infrastructure as Code (Bicep/Terraform)?
  • [ ] CI/CD pipelines implemented?
  • [ ] Application Insights for telemetry?
  • [ ] Centralized logging (Log Analytics)?
  • [ ] Alerts configured for critical scenarios?
  • [ ] Deployment automation and rollback?

Performance Efficiency Checklist:

  • [ ] CDN for static content?
  • [ ] Caching strategy (Redis, CDN)?
  • [ ] Asynchronous processing for long operations?
  • [ ] Appropriate compute SKUs selected?
  • [ ] Auto-scaling rules defined?
  • [ ] Performance testing completed?

Step 2: Score Each Pillar

Use 0-100 scoring system:

Scoring Criteria:

  • 80-100 (Excellent): Meets all best practices, production-ready
  • 60-79 (Good): Meets most practices, minor gaps
  • 40-59 (Fair): Some practices missing, moderate risk
  • 20-39 (Poor): Many gaps, significant improvements needed
  • 0-19 (Critical): Major gaps, not production-ready

Step 3: Provide Recommendations

For each identified gap:

  • Finding: What's missing or problematic
  • Risk: Impact if not addressed
  • Recommendation: Specific action to take
  • Priority: Critical / High / Medium / Low
  • Effort: Hours or days to implement

Assessment Output Format

# Well-Architected Framework Assessment
**Architecture**: [Name]
**Assessment Date**: [Date]
**Overall Score**: [Average of 5 pillars]/100

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences on overall health, key strengths, top risks]

## Pillar Scores

| Pillar | Score | Status |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Reliability | 75/100 | 🟢 Good |
| Security | 65/100 | 🟡 Fair |
| Cost Optimization | 80/100 | 🟢 Good |
| Operational Excellence | 70/100 | 🟡 Fair |
| Performance Efficiency | 85/100 | 🟢 Excellent |
| **Overall** | **75/100** | **🟢 Good** |

---

## 1. Reliability (75/100) - 🟢 Good

### Strengths
Availability Zones configured for App Service and Azure SQL
Health checks implemented with automatic failover
Backup strategy defined (RPO: 1 hour, RTO: 4 hours)

### Gaps & Recommendations

#### Finding #1: No Multi-Region Deployment
**Risk**: Regional outage causes complete service unavailability
**Recommendation**: Implement active-passive multi-region with Azure Front Door
**Priority**: High
**Effort**: 3-5 days
**Implementation**: Deploy secondary region (West US), configure Azure Front Door with priority routing

#### Finding #2: Missing Circuit Breaker Pattern
**Risk**: Cascading failures when dependencies are degraded
**Recommendation**: Implement circuit breaker using Polly library
**Priority**: Medium
**Effort**: 1-2 days

---

## 2. Security (65/100) - 🟡 Fair

### Strengths
Azure AD authentication configured
HTTPS enforced with TLS 1.2
Key Vault used for connection strings

### Gaps & Recommendations

#### Finding #1: Service Principal Used Instead of Managed Identity
**Risk**: Credential rotation required, potential secret exposure
**Recommendation**: Replace service principal with system-assigned managed identity
**Priority**: Critical
**Effort**: 4 hours
**Implementation**: 
1. Enable managed identity on App Service
2. Grant RBAC permissions to SQL and Key Vault
3. Remove service principal credentials

#### Finding #2: No Private Endpoints
**Risk**: PaaS services exposed to public internet
**Recommendation**: Implement private endpoints for SQL, Storage, Key Vault
**Priority**: High
**Effort**: 1 day

---

## 3-5. [Remaining Pillars Follow Same Structure]

---

## Priority Roadmap

### Critical (Fix Immediately)
1. Replace service principal with managed identity
2. Implement private endpoints for PaaS services

### High (Next 30 Days)
3. Multi-region deployment (active-passive)
4. Infrastructure as Code implementation
5. Implement comprehensive alerting

### Medium (Next 90 Days)
6. Circuit breaker pattern
7. Reserved instances for predictable workloads
8. Performance testing automation

### Low (Future Enhancements)
9. Chaos engineering tests
10. Additional caching layers

---

## Cost Impact Summary
- **Savings Opportunities**: ~$480/month (right-sizing, reserved instances)
- **Security Enhancements**: +$200/month (private endpoints)
- **Multi-Region**: +$850/month (passive region infrastructure)
- **Net Impact**: +$570/month for significantly improved resilience and security

---

## Conclusion
[Summary of assessment with key takeaways and prioritized next steps]

Tips for Effective Assessments

Be Specific: Reference exact resources and configurations

Quantify Risk: Use concrete examples of potential impact

Actionable Recommendations: Provide implementation steps, not just principles

Prioritize Ruthlessly: Help teams focus on what matters most

Show Business Impact: Connect technical gaps to business risks

Include Quick Wins: Balance strategic improvements with fast fixes

Cost-Aware: Show ROI for recommendations (cost vs benefit)

Avoid: Generic advice, overwhelming lists, missing priorities, theoretical recommendations

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take thomast1906/waf-assessment from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.