SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ skills

Infrastructure · Version 1.7.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Helm Chart Quality Reviewer

Review and harden template correctness and Values API design with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Reviews chart templates, values interfaces, helper naming, upgrade compatibility, hook safety, secret handling, and rendered-manifest correctness.

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools, with a raw SKILL.md fallback for every other compatible IDE or agent.

See the complete graphical installation and usage guide

What this skill helps you do

  • Template correctness
  • Values API design
  • Upgrade safety review

How Helm Chart Quality Reviewer works

You provide

Manifests, plans, and current runtime topology

It inspects

Reversibility and blast radius for template correctness

It decides

A Values API design change staged by risk

You verify

Platform-native health check after each stage

What it checks first

Helm Chart Quality Reviewer reviews chart templates, values interfaces, helper naming, upgrade compatibility, hook safety, secret handling, and rendered-manifest correctness. Use it when the work involves Template correctness, Values API design, Upgrade safety review.

  1. Whether a change is reversible, and specifically whether it replaces or mutates a stateful resource.
  2. Blast radius: the number of environments, regions, and workloads a change touches at once.
  3. Identity and permission scope of the executing principal.
  4. Drift between declared and actual state.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • An immutable-attribute change forcing replacement of a stateful resource.
  • A change applied to all environments simultaneously with no canary.
  • Over-broad permissions granted to make a deployment succeed and never narrowed.
  • Manual changes creating drift that the next apply silently reverts.

Answers it will reject

  • Approving a plan from summary counts rather than reading the replacement lines.
  • Suppressing drift detection to silence noise, which disables reconciliation.
  • Granting administrative rights as a debugging shortcut.

Decision rules it applies

  • Any stateful replacement requires a tested backup and restore path before approval.
  • Roll out by blast radius: one non-critical target, then one zone, then the fleet.
  • Grant the narrowest permission that completes the task, with an expiry.

Evidence it asks for

  • Diff the plan in machine-readable form and classify every action.
  • Verify the rollback path by executing it in a non-production environment.
  • Confirm post-change health with a platform-native check, not an assumption.

The method inside

  1. Map the artifact, actors, boundaries, and invariants relevant to template correctness.
  2. Trace concrete failure or abuse paths for Values API design; do not report checklist items without a mechanism.
  3. Prioritize upgrade safety review findings by impact, likelihood, confidence, and cost of correction.
  4. Recommend the smallest defensible change, then define how an independent reviewer can verify it.

Deliverables

  • Template correctness assessment
  • Values API design decision and action plan
  • Upgrade safety review verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Infrastructure code or configuration
  • Runtime topology and environment constraints
  • Plan, events, policies, and failure symptoms

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Review this Helm chart before we publish it for use by twenty internal teams with different environments.

Expected output

Several required values fail only during template rendering, and resource names change when optional fields are toggled, forcing replacement. Add schema validation and stabilize names before treating values.yaml as a supported API...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Template correctness: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Values API design: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Upgrade safety review: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Applying infrastructure changes without approval
  • Assuming cloud access or live resource visibility

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.