---

name: "cncf-yellowbrick-member-reviewer" description: "Review Yellowbrick (member) using its official documentation and repository in the CNCF Members / Silver category." version: "1.0.0" since: "2026-08-27" last_modified: "2026-08-27" authors:

• "platform-engineering" stability: "stable" min_platform_version: codex: "unknown" amazon-q: "unknown" antigravity: "unknown" auggie: "unknown" bob: "unknown" claude-code: "unknown" cline: "unknown" codebuddy: "unknown" continue: "unknown" costrict: "unknown" crush: "unknown" github-copilot: "unknown" gitlab-duo: "unknown" factory: "unknown" forgecode: "unknown" opencode: "unknown" openhands: "unknown" cursor: "unknown" roo-code: "unknown" kiro: "unknown" junie: "unknown" gemini-cli: "unknown" iflow: "unknown" kilocode: "unknown" kimi: "unknown" lingma: "unknown" pi: "unknown" qoder: "unknown" qwen: "unknown" windsurf: "unknown" ollama: "unknown" deprecated_since: replaces: supersedes: [] changelog:
• version: "1.0.0" date: "2026-08-27" change: "Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"

---

Cncf Yellowbrick Member Reviewer

Purpose

Review Yellowbrick (member) as an organization listed in the CNCF Landscape using current first-party evidence and explicit procurement, governance, security, portability, and operational criteria.

Goal and behavioral contract

The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.

Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.

When to use

• The organization, its cloud-native products, support, partnership, procurement, outsourcing, or exit strategy is being assessed.
• Claims about CNCF membership or capabilities need current verification.

Operating model

1. Treat CNCF Landscape inclusion as classification metadata, not endorsement, certification, security assurance, or proof of product fitness.
2. Verify current claims against the organization's first-party material and the official CNCF Landscape entry.
3. Separate organization-level membership from the maturity or CNCF status of individual projects.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• CNCF classification: CNCF Members / Silver
• First-party source: https://www.yellowbrick.com/
• product scope, ownership, support, security, compliance, portability, commercial dependencies, concentration risk, and exit strategy

Skill-Specific Checklist

• [ ] Confirm legal and product identity, current CNCF classification, offered services, support boundaries, regions, data handling, and shared responsibilities.
• [ ] Check security documentation, incident handling, vulnerability disclosure, support SLAs, audit evidence, subcontractors, portability, and termination assistance.
• [ ] Identify proprietary dependencies, lock-in, pricing or licensing constraints, migration paths, and operational ownership.
• [ ] Trace Yellowbrick (member) inputs, outputs, identities, trust boundaries, external dependencies, and persistent state.
• [ ] Check Yellowbrick (member) defaults, configuration precedence, environment separation, and drift from reviewed source.
• [ ] Check Yellowbrick (member) least privilege, credential rotation, audit events, policy enforcement, and break-glass behavior.
• [ ] Check Yellowbrick (member) resource ownership, cleanup, quotas, rate limits, timeouts, retries, and backpressure.
• [ ] Check Yellowbrick (member) release notes, supported upgrade paths, schema or API compatibility, and rollback constraints.
• [ ] Check Yellowbrick (member) dashboards, alerts, health signals, incident procedures, backup evidence, and recovery exercises.
• [ ] Check Yellowbrick (member) license, maintenance state, vulnerability handling, provenance, signatures, and dependency pinning.

Decision Rules

• Do not infer CNCF project status, certification, security, or endorsement from membership.
• Do not make procurement or legal conclusions without the applicable current contract and accountable reviewers.
• Require an exit path and evidence for material capability or compliance claims.
• If Yellowbrick (member) identity, version, edition, or deployment model cannot be established, report the uncertainty before recommending a change.
• If a Yellowbrick (member) change can affect availability, security boundaries, persistent data, or external consumers, require staged validation and explicit rollback criteria.

Finding Categories

• Identity, scope, classification, or claim mismatch.
• Security, compliance, support, responsibility, or incident-management gap.
• Portability, concentration, licensing, cost, contract, or exit-strategy risk.
• Yellowbrick (member) documentation, ownership, maintenance, licensing, provenance, or evidence gap.
• Yellowbrick (member) integration, dependency, compatibility, migration, or decommissioning risk.

Severity Guidance

• Critical: Yellowbrick (member) can enable broad compromise, destructive production mutation, tenant escape, secret exposure, or material data loss.
• High: Yellowbrick (member) can cause exploitable access, sustained outage, corrupt state, unsafe upgrade, or loss of recovery capability.
• Medium: Yellowbrick (member) has a bounded correctness, reliability, compatibility, observability, maintenance, or performance risk.
• Low: Yellowbrick (member) needs documentation, classification, idiomatic configuration, or validation-evidence improvement.

DevSecOps Guardrails

• Do not read secrets, .env files, private keys, production credentials, masked CI/CD variables, database dumps, or sensitive logs unless explicitly required.
• Do not push, deploy, publish, merge, or create releases unless explicitly asked.
• Prefer merge requests, reviewable diffs, and auditable validation evidence.
• Prefer least privilege, minimal changes, and explicit rollback notes.
• Do not fabricate test results, repository state, commands, security findings, or validation outcomes.
• Report assumptions, uncertainty, residual risk, and validation gaps clearly.

Output Requirements

• State the Landscape snapshot classification and sources checked.
• Return an evidence-backed capability and risk assessment with open questions, owners, and expiry dates.
• Include a Yellowbrick (member) architecture and dependency summary with trust boundaries and persistent state.
• Include Yellowbrick (member) validation commands or tests that are safe for the stated environment.
• Include Yellowbrick (member) ownership, rollout, rollback, monitoring, and follow-up actions.

Acceptance Criteria

• Membership is not presented as endorsement or project maturity.
• Material claims, responsibilities, dependencies, and exit assumptions are traceable to current evidence.
• Yellowbrick (member) identity, version, configuration, dependencies, and deployment assumptions are explicit.
• Yellowbrick (member) failure, upgrade, rollback, observability, and recovery paths have proportionate evidence.
• Yellowbrick (member) security boundaries, credentials, network exposure, data handling, and supply-chain risks are addressed.

Anti-Patterns

• Equating a Landscape logo with CNCF certification or technical approval.
• Inventing product features, contract terms, regions, certifications, or support commitments.
• Assuming Landscape inclusion or popularity proves that Yellowbrick (member) is secure, supported, compatible, or suitable.
• Using an unpinned latest version of Yellowbrick (member) as the basis for migration or production guidance.
• Ignoring Yellowbrick (member) operational ownership, data lifecycle, upgrade constraints, rollback, and decommissioning.

Changelog

1.0.0 - 2026-08-27

• Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill.