SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB import-infrastructure-as-code

Import existing Azure resources into Terraform using Azure CLI discovery and Azure Verified Modules (AVM). Use when asked to reverse-engineer live Azure infrastructure, generate Infrastructure as Code from existing subscriptions/resource groups/resource IDs, map dependencies, derive exact import addresses from downloaded module source, prevent configuration drift, and produce AVM-based Terraform files ready for validation and planning across any Azure resource type.

github/awesome-copilot Agent Skills author: github MIT 1 file body ≈ 4 548 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 22 h ago

Import existing Azure resources into Terraform using Azure CLI discovery and Azure Verified Modules (AVM).

As a process B 75/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting

IntegrationTerraformAzureGitHubInfrastructuretype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: GitHub Copilot / VS Code Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
87
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
75/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Tools and files w 18
60
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 1 more place: RA-Skills

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 75/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 8 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (bash, web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4548 tokens
    • 85Steps. 73 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 100Failures and branches. 1 branches, has a failure section
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
    • low The response is described with custom markup (24 tags): a typed call is more reliable

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 470: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 27 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 73 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (11 code blocks)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 87.