azure-well-architected-review
Perform an Azure Well-Architected Framework review of the current workload IaC and architecture, generating findings and GitHub issues for improvements.
Install / Use
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill azure-well-architected-reviewInstalls into whichever agent you are using.
SKILL.md
Installable skill definition
Quality Score
Category
AutomationSupported Platforms
Our assessment of azure-well-architected-review
azure-well-architected-review scores 91/100 on our quality scale, 595th of 1,943 Automation skills we index (top 31%).
Its SKILL.md is 9.9 KB long, well organised into 22 sections with 4 code examples: a thorough specification that gives an agent plenty to work with.
With 39,348 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.
Maintenance, license and trust
- The repository was last updated 3 days ago, so azure-well-architected-review is actively maintained.
- It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
- Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.
azure-well-architected-review compared with similar skills
All 4 of these similar skills score higher than azure-well-architected-review; compare them before choosing.
| Skill | Score | Stars | Updated | Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| azure-well-architected-review (this skill)by github | 91 | 39.3k | 3d ago | SKILL.md |
| Agent-Reachby Panniantong | 100 | 85.7k | 12d ago | CLAUDE.md |
| rufloby ruvnet | 100 | 73.4k | today | CLAUDE.md |
| Scraplingby D4Vinci | 100 | 84.0k | today | MCP Server |
| algorithmic-artby anthropics | 100 | 177.9k | 5d ago | SKILL.md |
Frequently asked questions
- How do I install azure-well-architected-review?
- Run
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill azure-well-architected-review. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent. - Which AI agents does azure-well-architected-review work with?
- It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
- Is azure-well-architected-review safe to use?
- It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
- Is azure-well-architected-review still maintained?
- The repository was last updated 3 days ago, so azure-well-architected-review is actively maintained.
Skill content
View source on GitHubname: azure-well-architected-review description: 'Perform an Azure Well-Architected Framework review of the current workload IaC and architecture, generating findings and GitHub issues for improvements.'
Azure Well-Architected Review
This workflow performs a structured Azure Well-Architected Framework (WAF) review against your workload's IaC files and deployed infrastructure. It identifies risks across all 5 WAF pillars and creates GitHub issues to track remediation.
Prerequisites
- Azure CLI (
az) configured and authenticated - IaC files present in the repository (Bicep, Terraform, or ARM templates)
- GitHub MCP server configured and authenticated
Workflow Steps
Step 1: Load Well-Architected Framework Reference
Fetch current Azure WAF best practices:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/well-architected/- Service guides for the Azure services in use (
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/well-architected/service-guides/) - Workload-specific guidance relevant to the workload type (SaaS, mission-critical, AI, etc.)
If the microsoft.docs.mcp MCP server is available, use it to query the latest pillar checklists and service-specific recommendations.
Step 2: Discover IaC & Architecture
Establish the review scope, then inventory both the code and the live environment:
- Confirm the Azure scope: Ask the user which subscription(s)/resource group(s) are in scope, or infer them from IaC parameters and confirm.
- Scan the repository for IaC files:
- Bicep:
**/*.bicep,bicepconfig.json - Terraform:
**/*.tf(azurerm/azapi providers) - ARM templates:
**/azuredeploy*.json,**/*.template.json, files with$schemacontainingdeploymentTemplate
- Bicep:
- Inventory live resources (always, even when IaC exists):
az resource list --resource-group <rg> --output json(or subscription-wide), plus targetedaz <service> showcalls for configuration details the pillar checks need. - Compare IaC with live inventory: Flag drift — resources present in Azure but absent from IaC (portal-created), resources defined in IaC but not deployed, and configuration mismatches. Record drift findings for Step 3 (they typically map to the Operational Excellence pillar).
Identify key Azure services in use (compute, data, networking, security, observability) and generate a Mermaid architecture diagram.
Step 3: Pillar-by-Pillar Review
Pillar 1: Reliability
- [ ] Availability zones enabled for zonal services (VMs, VMSS, AKS node pools, App Service, SQL, Storage ZRS)
- [ ] Production SKUs support the required SLA (no Basic/Free tiers on critical paths)
- [ ] Azure SQL / Cosmos DB backup and point-in-time restore configured with appropriate retention
- [ ] Geo-redundancy configured where RPO requires it (GRS/RA-GRS storage, SQL failover groups, Cosmos DB multi-region)
- [ ] Autoscale rules configured for App Service plans, VMSS, AKS (no fixed single instance for production)
- [ ] Health probes configured on Load Balancer / Application Gateway / Front Door backends
- [ ] Dead-lettering enabled for Service Bus queues/subscriptions and Event Grid subscriptions
- [ ] Retry policies with exponential backoff implemented for transient fault handling
- [ ] Disaster recovery plan defined (documented RTO/RPO, tested failover)
Pillar 2: Security
- [ ] Managed identities used instead of service principals with secrets or connection strings
- [ ] No hardcoded credentials, keys, or connection strings in IaC or code
- [ ] Secrets stored in Azure Key Vault with RBAC authorization (not access policies)
- [ ] Storage accounts deny public blob access and disallow shared key access where possible
- [ ] Private endpoints (or at minimum service endpoints + firewall rules) for PaaS data services
- [ ] NSGs restrict inbound traffic to minimum required ports/CIDRs (no
*→*allow rules) - [ ] TLS 1.2+ enforced on all endpoints (
minimumTlsVersion,httpsOnly) - [ ] Azure RBAC follows least privilege (no Owner/Contributor at subscription scope for workload identities)
- [ ] Microsoft Defender for Cloud enabled on relevant resource types (
az security pricing list) - [ ] Azure WAF (Application Gateway or Front Door) configured for public-facing web endpoints
- [ ] Diagnostic settings send security logs to Log Analytics / Microsoft Sentinel
Pillar 3: Cost Optimization
- [ ] Reservations or savings plans evaluated for steady-state compute (VMs, App Service, SQL)
- [ ] Storage lifecycle management policies move blobs to cool/archive tiers
- [ ] Right-sized SKUs based on actual utilization (no oversized VMs/App Service plans)
- [ ] Dev/test environments use auto-shutdown schedules and Dev/Test pricing where eligible
- [ ] Azure Budgets and cost alerts configured (
az consumption budget list) - [ ] Unattached managed disks and orphaned public IPs identified and removed
- [ ] Consumption/serverless tiers used for spiky or low-volume workloads (Functions, Container Apps, SQL serverless)
- [ ] Log Analytics retention and data-cap settings tuned to avoid ingestion overruns
Pillar 4: Operational Excellence
- [ ] All infrastructure defined as IaC (no manual portal changes; deny assignments or policy where feasible)
- [ ] Consistent tagging strategy applied across all resources (owner, environment, cost center)
- [ ] Azure Monitor alerts defined for key metrics and service health
- [ ] Automated deployment pipeline present (GitHub Actions / Azure Pipelines, no manual deployments)
- [ ] Azure Activity Log and resource diagnostic settings routed to Log Analytics
- [ ] Application Insights (or OpenTelemetry equivalent) instrumented for application workloads
- [ ] Azure Policy assignments enforce organizational standards (allowed locations, SKUs, tags)
- [ ] Runbooks or operational documentation present
Pillar 5: Performance Efficiency
- [ ] Right-sized compute SKUs validated against load requirements
- [ ] Caching implemented where beneficial (Azure Cache for Redis, CDN/Front Door caching)
- [ ] Azure Front Door or CDN used for global static content delivery
- [ ] Autoscale based on load metrics rather than fixed instance counts
- [ ] Database performance tier appropriate (DTU vs vCore, elastic pools, Cosmos DB RU autoscale)
- [ ] Premium/zone-redundant storage used for latency-sensitive disk workloads
- [ ] Connection pooling and async patterns used for database and HTTP clients
Step 4: Risk Classification
For each finding, classify:
- High Risk: Security vulnerability, single point of failure, no backup/recovery
- Medium Risk: Suboptimal reliability, cost inefficiency, performance concern
- Low Risk: Best practice deviation, minor optimization opportunity
Step 5: User Confirmation
🏗️ Azure Well-Architected Review Summary
📊 Review Results:
• IaC Files Analyzed: X
• Azure Services Identified: Y
• Total Findings: Z
• High Risk: A (immediate action required)
• Medium Risk: B (should address soon)
• Low Risk: C (nice to have)
🔴 Top High Risk Findings:
1. [Pillar]: [Finding] — [Why it matters]
2. [Pillar]: [Finding] — [Why it matters]
💡 This will create Z individual GitHub issues + 1 EPIC issue.
❓ Proceed with creating GitHub issues? (y/n)
Gate: Only proceed to Steps 6–7 if the user gives an explicit affirmative response (e.g. "y", "yes"). On a negative, ambiguous, or missing response, do not create any GitHub issues — output the full findings as formatted markdown to the console and stop.
Step 6: Create Individual Finding Issues
Label with "well-architected" and the pillar name (e.g., "security", "reliability").
Title: [WAF-<PILLAR>] [Brief Finding] — [Risk Level]
Body:
## 🏗️ Well-Architected Finding: [Brief Title]
**Pillar**: [Name] | **Risk Level**: [High/Medium/Low] | **Effort**: [Low/Medium/High]
### 📋 Description
[Clear explanation of the finding and why it matters]
### 🔧 Remediation
**IaC Fix** (preferred):
```bicep
// Bicep example
resource storageAccount 'Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts@2023-05-01' = {
name: storageAccountName
location: location
sku: { name: 'Standard_ZRS' }
kind: 'StorageV2'
properties: {
minimumTlsVersion: 'TLS1_2'
allowBlobPublicAccess: false
supportsHttpsTrafficOnly: true
}
}
```
**Azure CLI fallback**:
```bash
az storage account update --name <name> --resource-group <rg> \
--min-tls-version TLS1_2 --allow-blob-public-access false --https-only true
```
### 📚 Azure Reference
- [WAF Best Practice Link]
- [Microsoft Learn Documentation Link]
### ✅ Validation
- [ ] Change implemented in IaC and deployed
- [ ] Azure Policy compliance passes (if applicable)
- [ ] Microsoft Defender for Cloud recommendation resolved (if applicable)
**Well-Architected Recommendation**: [WAF checklist item this maps to]
Step 7: Create EPIC Tracking Issue
Label with "well-architected" and "epic".
Title: [EPIC] Azure Well-Architected Review — X findings across 5 pillars
Body: Executive summary with pillar breakdown table (finding counts by pillar and risk level), Mermaid architecture diagram, prioritized checklist linking all individual issues (High → Medium → Low), and success criteria:
- All High-risk findings resolved
- Medium findings have accepted mitigation plans
- No regression in existing Azure Monitor alerts or Azure Policy compliance
Error Handling
- No IaC Files Found: Limit review to live resource discovery via Azure CLI (
az resource list) and note the gap - Insufficient Azure Permissions: List required read-only roles for the review (Reader, Security Reader)
- GitHub Creation Failure: Output all findings as formatted markdown to console
Success Criteria
- ✅ All 5 WAF pillars reviewed against IaC and live infrastructure
- ✅ All findings classified by risk level and pillar
- ✅ Actionable remediation steps with IaC examples for each finding
- ✅ GitHub issues created for team tracking
- ✅ Architecture diagram generated for EPIC context
- ✅ Microsoft Learn documentation references included
Related Skills
Agent-Reach
85.7kGive your AI agent eyes to see the entire internet. Read & search Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, GitHub, Bilibili, XiaoHongShu — one CLI, zero API fees.
ruflo
73.4k🌊 The original agent harness. Deploy intelligent multi-player swarms, coordinate autonomous workflows, and build conversational AI systems. Features adaptive memory, self-learning intelligence, federation, vector RAG integration, and native Claude Code / Codex / Hermes and many more Integrated
Scrapling
84.0k🕷️ An adaptive Web Scraping framework that handles everything from a single request to a full-scale crawl! Don't be shy, join here: https://discord.gg/EMgGbDceNQ and follow here for daily tips and tricks: https://x.com/Scrapling_dev
algorithmic-art
177.9kCreating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems.
Languages
Trust signals
From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.
