← Back to all projects

OBSERVABILITY RELIABILITY PROJECTS

Modern systems are distributed and dynamic. A single user request can touch dozens of services, queues, databases, and third-party APIs. When something breaks, logs alone are not enough, metrics can be misleading, and traces are incomplete without proper context.

Learn Observability & Reliability: From Zero to Observability Master

Goal: Deeply understand how systems become observable and reliable by designing the signals (logs, metrics, traces) that describe their behavior, and the practices (SLOs, error budgets, incident response, chaos engineering) that keep them healthy. You will learn why observability exists, how it evolved from simple logging to distributed tracing, and how to turn raw telemetry into decisions. By the end, you will be able to build telemetry pipelines, define service-level objectives, detect and debug failures, and validate reliability with controlled chaos. You will understand how production systems fail and how to design them to fail predictably.

Why Observability & Reliability Matters

Modern systems are distributed and dynamic. A single user request can touch dozens of services, queues, databases, and third-party APIs. When something breaks, logs alone are not enough, metrics can be misleading, and traces are incomplete without proper context.

Observability evolved because:

  • Logs were noisy and unstructured, making debugging slow and unreliable.
  • Metrics showed trends but not the causal chain of failures.
  • Tracing made causality visible, but only if instrumentation and context propagation were correct.
  • SRE practices brought mathematical definitions of reliability (SLOs, error budgets) to business decisions.
  • Chaos engineering proved that reliability isn’t assumed — it must be tested.

The real-world impact is massive:

  • Reduced mean time to recovery (MTTR)
  • Lower outage frequency and severity
  • Faster performance tuning
  • Higher confidence in deployments
User Request
    |
    v
+---------+       +---------+       +---------+
| Service | ----> | Service | ----> | Service |
+---------+       +---------+       +---------+
   |  |  \            |               |
   |  |   \           |               |
   |  |    \          |               |
 Logs Metrics Traces  Logs Metrics Traces

Core Concept Analysis

1. Signals: Logs, Metrics, Traces (The Telemetry Trinity)

          TELEMETRY SIGNALS
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
|     Logs       |    Metrics     |     Traces     |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Discrete events| Aggregated time| Causal paths   |
| High detail    | Trend/alerting | End-to-end     |
| High volume    | Low storage    | Medium volume  |
+----------------+----------------+----------------+

Why this matters: You need all three to answer “what happened,” “how bad is it,” and “why did it happen?”

2. Structured Logging (Making Logs Queryable)

Unstructured:
"user 42 failed login from 10.2.3.4"

Structured:
{
  event: "auth_failed",
  user_id: 42,
  ip: "10.2.3.4",
  reason: "bad_password"
}

Why this matters: Without structure, you cannot reliably filter, aggregate, or alert.

3. Metrics Systems (Prometheus Mental Model)

  Scrape
Prometheus <---- /metrics endpoint
   |                 |
   v                 v
Time-series DB     Service

Why this matters: Metrics are the backbone of alerting and SLO compliance.

4. Distributed Tracing (Context Propagation)

Trace (Request)
  |
  +-- Span A (frontend)
  |
  +-- Span B (auth)
  |     |
  |     +-- Span C (db)
  |
  +-- Span D (payments)

Why this matters: You can only debug latency and errors across services if you preserve trace context.

5. SRE Practices (SLOs & Error Budgets)

SLO: 99.9% success over 30 days
Allowed error budget: 0.1%
= 43m 12s of downtime per 30 days

Why this matters: SLOs turn reliability into a measurable contract between engineering and business.

6. Chaos Engineering (Proving Reliability Under Stress)

Baseline System
      |
      v
Inject Failure (latency, loss, crash)
      |
      v
Observe: Is the system still meeting SLOs?

Why this matters: You don’t learn about failure modes until you induce them safely.

Concept Summary Table

Concept Cluster What You Need to Internalize
Telemetry Signals Logs, metrics, and traces answer different questions and must be correlated to be useful.
Structured Logging Logs are only valuable when they are machine-queryable and consistent.
Prometheus Metrics Metrics drive alerting and SLOs; scraping and label design determine clarity.
Distributed Tracing Traces require context propagation or they become disconnected fragments.
SRE Economics Error budgets define how much risk the business accepts.
Chaos Engineering Reliability must be tested through controlled failures.

Deep Dive Reading by Concept

Telemetry Fundamentals

Concept Book & Chapter
Observability overview “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. — Ch. 6: “Monitoring”
Telemetry signals “Observability Engineering” by Charity Majors et al. — Ch. 2: “Telemetry”

Logging & Metrics

Concept Book & Chapter
Structured logging “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan — Ch. 3: “Logs”
Metrics fundamentals “Prometheus: Up & Running” by Brian Brazil — Ch. 2: “Metrics and Labels”

Tracing & Context

Concept Book & Chapter
Distributed tracing “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan — Ch. 4: “Traces”
Context propagation “Distributed Tracing in Practice” by Austin Parker — Ch. 5: “Context”

Reliability & SRE

Concept Book & Chapter
SLOs and error budgets “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. — Ch. 4: “Service Level Objectives”
Incident response “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” by O’Reilly — Ch. 7: “Incident Response”

Chaos Engineering

Concept Book & Chapter
Chaos experiments “Chaos Engineering” by Casey Rosenthal et al. — Ch. 1: “Principles”
Failure modes “Release It!” by Michael Nygard — Ch. 3: “Stability Patterns”

Essential Reading Order

  1. Foundation (Week 1):
    • Site Reliability Engineering Ch. 6 (Monitoring)
    • Prometheus: Up & Running Ch. 2 (Metrics)
  2. Correlation (Week 2):
    • Distributed Systems Observability Ch. 3-4 (Logs & Traces)
  3. Reliability (Week 3):
    • SRE Ch. 4 (SLOs)
    • Release It! Ch. 3 (Failure patterns)
  4. Validation (Week 4):
    • Chaos Engineering Ch. 1 (Principles)

Project List

Project 1: Structured Logging Contract Tester

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Python
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Go, Rust, Node.js
  • Coolness Level: Level 2: Practical but Forgettable
  • Business Potential: 2. The “Micro-SaaS / Pro Tool”
  • Difficulty: Level 1: Beginner
  • Knowledge Area: Logging / Data Validation
  • Software or Tool: OpenTelemetry Log Schema (conceptual)
  • Main Book: “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan

What you’ll build: A validator that checks application logs for structured fields, consistency, and required metadata.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It forces you to define what a “good log” looks like, making log quality measurable rather than subjective.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Defining a log schema that covers errors, warnings, and audits
  • Detecting missing context fields across log streams
  • Designing severity and event taxonomy

Key Concepts

  • Structured logging: Distributed Systems Observability — Cindy Sridharan
  • Log schema design: Observability Engineering — Charity Majors et al.
  • Error taxonomy: Release It! — Michael Nygard

Difficulty: Beginner Time estimate: Weekend Prerequisites: Basic scripting, reading JSON, understanding of log levels

Real World Outcome

You will have a command-line tool that scans log files and reports schema violations, missing fields, and inconsistent event names. When you run it, you’ll see a compliance report with percentages and examples.

Example Output:

$ ./log_contract_tester --schema log_schema.json --input logs/
Scanned: 12,487 log lines
Schema compliance: 86.3%
Missing fields:
  - request_id: 1,204 lines
  - user_id: 483 lines
  - service_name: 87 lines
Inconsistent event names:
  - "auth.fail" vs "auth_failed" (235 lines)
Suggested fixes:
  - Standardize to "auth_failed"
  - Add request_id to all HTTP handlers

The Core Question You’re Answering

“What makes a log entry useful enough to debug a real outage?”

Before you write any code, sit with this question. Logs are often treated as “println debugging,” but in production they must be queryable, consistent, and correlated. This project forces you to define those requirements explicitly.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Log structure and fields
    • What fields should every log entry include?
    • How do you distinguish user actions from system events?
    • How do you encode severity?
    • Book Reference: “Distributed Systems Observability” Ch. 3 — Cindy Sridharan
  2. Correlation identifiers
    • What is a request_id or trace_id?
    • How do they tie logs to traces?
    • Book Reference: “Observability Engineering” Ch. 2 — Charity Majors et al.

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Schema completeness
    • Which fields are mandatory for every event?
    • Which fields are optional by event type?
  2. Taxonomy consistency
    • How will you enforce a consistent event naming system?
    • What is the minimal viable set of event categories?

Thinking Exercise

Log Quality Debug

Before coding, analyze this sample log stream and list which entries are unusable and why:

[INFO] user 12 logged in
{"event":"login","user_id":12}
{"event":"login","user_id":12,"request_id":"abc"}
{"event":"auth_fail","reason":"bad_password"}

Questions while analyzing:

  • Which lines are impossible to query reliably?
  • Which lines would break correlation with traces?
  • What minimal changes would make all entries useful?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “Why is structured logging better than text logs?”
  2. “What fields must be included in every log entry?”
  3. “How do you design a log taxonomy for a large system?”
  4. “What is a correlation ID and how is it used?”
  5. “How do you prevent log noise in production?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with a schema draft Define the mandatory fields before thinking about implementation.

Hint 2: Classify events Group logs by event category and define required fields per category.

Hint 3: Build the validation report Plan your output as a compliance report with percentages and samples.

Hint 4: Use small log sets first Validate correctness on a tiny dataset before scaling.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Structured logging “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan Ch. 3
Telemetry basics “Observability Engineering” by Charity Majors et al. Ch. 2
Failure patterns “Release It!” by Michael Nygard Ch. 3

Project 2: Prometheus Metrics Design Lab

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Go
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Python, Rust, Java
  • Coolness Level: Level 2: Practical but Forgettable
  • Business Potential: 2. The “Micro-SaaS / Pro Tool”
  • Difficulty: Level 2: Intermediate
  • Knowledge Area: Metrics / Monitoring
  • Software or Tool: Prometheus
  • Main Book: “Prometheus: Up & Running” by Brian Brazil

What you’ll build: A small service with deliberately designed metrics and a dashboard that reveals latency, errors, and saturation.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It forces you to think in terms of metric types (counters, gauges, histograms) and label design, which directly affects alerting accuracy.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Choosing correct metric types for requests, errors, and latency
  • Designing labels that avoid cardinality explosions
  • Interpreting Prometheus queries as reliability signals

Key Concepts

  • Metric types: Prometheus: Up & Running — Brian Brazil
  • Label cardinality: Prometheus: Up & Running — Brian Brazil
  • SLI design: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.

Difficulty: Intermediate Time estimate: 1-2 weeks Prerequisites: Basic HTTP service knowledge, familiarity with metrics

Real World Outcome

You will have a service exposing a metrics endpoint and a dashboard that shows request throughput, error rate, and latency distribution. You can intentionally degrade the service and watch the metrics change predictably.

Example Output:

$ curl http://localhost:9090/metrics
request_total{route="/checkout",status="200"} 8421
request_total{route="/checkout",status="500"} 31
request_latency_seconds_bucket{route="/checkout",le="0.1"} 7000
request_latency_seconds_bucket{route="/checkout",le="0.5"} 8300
request_latency_seconds_bucket{route="/checkout",le="1"} 8410

The Core Question You’re Answering

“How do I design metrics so they answer real reliability questions?”

Metrics are only useful if they match the questions you care about. This project makes you map each metric to a specific SLI.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Metric types
    • When should a value be a counter vs gauge vs histogram?
    • What does “monotonic” mean in metrics?
    • Book Reference: “Prometheus: Up & Running” Ch. 2 — Brian Brazil
  2. SLIs and SLOs
    • What is a Service Level Indicator?
    • How does an SLI map to a metric?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 4 — Beyer et al.

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Metric usefulness
    • Which metrics would be used to decide if you release or roll back?
    • Which metrics matter to users vs operators?
  2. Label design
    • Which labels are stable and low-cardinality?
    • Which labels are too dynamic and should be removed?

Thinking Exercise

Metric Choice

Before coding, classify these as counter, gauge, or histogram:

- total requests
- current memory usage
- request latency distribution
- active connections

Questions while classifying:

  • Why would the wrong metric type mislead an alert?
  • Which of these should be aggregated across instances?
  • Which should never be averaged?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What is the difference between a counter and a gauge?”
  2. “Why are histograms critical for latency?”
  3. “What causes metric cardinality explosions?”
  4. “How would you design an SLI for latency?”
  5. “What metrics are most important for a web service?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with the RED metrics Requests, Errors, Duration — design around these first.

Hint 2: Keep labels small Use only route and status initially, avoid user IDs.

Hint 3: Make a dashboard goal Define the questions your dashboard must answer first.

Hint 4: Simulate failures Add a way to generate errors to see the metric change.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Metric design “Prometheus: Up & Running” by Brian Brazil Ch. 2
SLIs and SLOs “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 4
Monitoring “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 6

Project 3: Trace Context Propagation Simulator

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Go
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Java, Python, Rust
  • Coolness Level: Level 3: Genuinely Clever
  • Business Potential: 1. The “Resume Gold”
  • Difficulty: Level 2: Intermediate
  • Knowledge Area: Distributed Tracing
  • Software or Tool: OpenTelemetry
  • Main Book: “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan

What you’ll build: A multi-service simulator that passes trace context between services and produces a unified trace view.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: Context propagation is the core of distributed tracing. If it breaks, traces fragment and debugging becomes impossible.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Defining propagation rules for trace and span IDs
  • Capturing service boundaries and parent-child relationships
  • Visualizing trace structure in a simple viewer

Key Concepts

  • Trace and span fundamentals: Distributed Systems Observability — Cindy Sridharan
  • Context propagation: Distributed Tracing in Practice — Austin Parker
  • Causal graphs: Observability Engineering — Charity Majors et al.

Difficulty: Intermediate Time estimate: 1-2 weeks Prerequisites: Understanding HTTP services, basic concurrency

Real World Outcome

You will have a simulated request that travels through several services, producing a trace graph that shows latency per span and errors in context. You can inspect trace trees and identify bottlenecks.

Example Output:

Trace ID: 7f3a2c9b
Span: checkout-service (120ms)
  ├─ Span: auth-service (45ms)
  └─ Span: payment-service (60ms)
       └─ Span: db-query (22ms)
Status: ERROR (payment-service timeout)

The Core Question You’re Answering

“How do I preserve causality across distributed services?”

This project forces you to define the precise rules for trace propagation. Without them, traces are just isolated spans with no narrative.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Trace structure
    • What is a trace vs a span?
    • What does parent-child mean in tracing?
    • Book Reference: “Distributed Systems Observability” Ch. 4 — Cindy Sridharan
  2. Context propagation
    • How is trace context passed over HTTP?
    • What happens when context is missing?
    • Book Reference: “Distributed Tracing in Practice” Ch. 5 — Austin Parker

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Trace lifecycle
    • When is a new trace created?
    • When should a span be a child vs sibling?
  2. Error handling
    • How do errors propagate to parent spans?
    • How do you represent partial failures?

Thinking Exercise

Trace Reconstruction

Before coding, sketch the trace tree for a request that hits three services, where the middle service calls a database twice.

Service A -> Service B -> DB (read)
                     -> DB (write)
         -> Service C

Questions while diagramming:

  • Which spans should be siblings?
  • Which spans should be children?
  • Where would you mark an error if the DB write fails?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What is the purpose of a trace ID?”
  2. “How do spans relate to each other?”
  3. “What happens if a service drops the trace context?”
  4. “How do you model retries in a trace?”
  5. “What is the difference between tracing and logging?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with a single request path Model a fixed call chain before adding concurrency.

Hint 2: Make propagation explicit Treat trace context as an explicit input/output for each service.

Hint 3: Visualize as a tree Trace structure should be a tree with parents and children.

Hint 4: Test missing context Intentionally drop context in one hop to see the impact.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Tracing basics “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan Ch. 4
Context propagation “Distributed Tracing in Practice” by Austin Parker Ch. 5
Observability fundamentals “Observability Engineering” by Charity Majors et al. Ch. 2

Project 4: SLO and Error Budget Calculator

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Python
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Go, Rust, JavaScript
  • Coolness Level: Level 2: Practical but Forgettable
  • Business Potential: 2. The “Micro-SaaS / Pro Tool”
  • Difficulty: Level 1: Beginner
  • Knowledge Area: SRE / Reliability
  • Software or Tool: SLO worksheets
  • Main Book: “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al.

What you’ll build: A tool that takes SLIs and outputs SLO compliance, remaining error budget, and burn rate warnings.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It forces you to translate “reliability” into math and learn how error budgets shape release decisions.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Defining SLIs clearly enough to compute
  • Translating SLO percentages into time budgets
  • Handling different rolling windows

Key Concepts

  • SLO math: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.
  • Error budget policy: The Reliability Engineering Workbook — O’Reilly
  • Burn rates: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.

Difficulty: Beginner Time estimate: Weekend Prerequisites: Basic math, understanding of SLO concepts

Real World Outcome

You will have a report that tells you whether a service is within its SLO, how much error budget is left, and whether you should freeze releases.

Example Output:

$ ./slo_calc --slo 99.9 --window 30d --events success=998500 total=1000000
SLO Target: 99.9%
Actual: 99.85%
Error budget remaining: 21m 36s (50.0% remaining)
Burn rate (last 1h): 4.2x (ALERT)
Recommendation: Pause risky releases

The Core Question You’re Answering

“How do I quantify reliability in a way that drives decisions?”

Without error budgets, reliability is just a feeling. This project makes reliability measurable and actionable.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. SLI definitions
    • What does “good event” mean for a service?
    • How do you define the denominator correctly?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 4 — Beyer et al.
  2. Error budget math
    • How is error budget calculated from an SLO?
    • What does “burn rate” mean?
    • Book Reference: “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” Ch. 7 — O’Reilly

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Time windows
    • How do rolling windows change calculations?
    • Which window sizes matter to stakeholders?
  2. Policy decisions
    • What burn rate triggers a freeze?
    • How do you present recommendations clearly?

Thinking Exercise

Error Budget Math

Before coding, calculate the remaining error budget for a 99.95% SLO over 28 days with 12 minutes of downtime already consumed.

SLO: 99.95%
Window: 28 days
Downtime consumed: 12 minutes

Questions while calculating:

  • How much total downtime is allowed?
  • What percent of the error budget is left?
  • How would a 5x burn rate affect release decisions?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What is an SLO and why is it important?”
  2. “How do you calculate an error budget?”
  3. “What is a burn rate alert?”
  4. “How do SLOs affect release velocity?”
  5. “What is the difference between an SLI and an SLA?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with a single SLO Use a single 30-day window to validate calculations.

Hint 2: Normalize inputs Translate counts into percentages before computing.

Hint 3: Add rolling windows Support multiple windows for burn rate analysis.

Hint 4: Provide human-readable output Express time budgets in hours/minutes, not just percent.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
SLOs and SLIs “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 4
Error budgets “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” by O’Reilly Ch. 7
Release policy “Release It!” by Michael Nygard Ch. 3

Project 5: Incident Timeline & Postmortem Builder

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Python
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Go, Ruby, Node.js
  • Coolness Level: Level 2: Practical but Forgettable
  • Business Potential: 2. The “Micro-SaaS / Pro Tool”
  • Difficulty: Level 2: Intermediate
  • Knowledge Area: Incident Response
  • Software or Tool: Postmortem templates
  • Main Book: “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” by O’Reilly

What you’ll build: A tool that ingests incident logs and produces a structured timeline and postmortem draft.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It connects telemetry signals to incident response practice, showing how evidence becomes learning.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Normalizing events from logs, metrics, and alerts into a timeline
  • Identifying detection, escalation, mitigation, and resolution stages
  • Linking technical symptoms to customer impact

Key Concepts

  • Incident response: The Reliability Engineering Workbook — O’Reilly
  • Blameless postmortems: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.
  • Timeline building: The Practice of Cloud System Administration — Limoncelli

Difficulty: Intermediate Time estimate: 1-2 weeks Prerequisites: Familiarity with logs/alerts, basic data parsing

Real World Outcome

You will have a generated postmortem with a clear timeline, impact summary, root cause hypotheses, and action items. This is a real artifact used in SRE teams.

Example Output:

$ ./postmortem_builder --incident logs/incident_042/
Incident: API latency spike
Impact: 12% of requests > 3s for 38 minutes
Timeline:
  10:02 - Alert: p95 latency > 2s
  10:06 - On-call acknowledged
  10:12 - Rolled back deployment
  10:25 - Latency normalized
Root cause hypothesis: Cache invalidation bug increased DB load
Action items:
  - Add cache hit-rate metric
  - Add canary checks for latency regression

The Core Question You’re Answering

“How do we turn telemetry into learning after an outage?”

Without structured timelines, postmortems become vague. This project formalizes the discipline of evidence-based incident analysis.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Incident phases
    • What is detection vs mitigation vs resolution?
    • How do you classify customer impact?
    • Book Reference: “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” Ch. 7 — O’Reilly
  2. Blameless culture
    • Why should postmortems avoid blame?
    • How do action items improve reliability?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 15 — Beyer et al.

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Signal correlation
    • How do you align timestamps across logs and alerts?
    • How do you handle missing events?
  2. Outcome quality
    • What makes a postmortem “actionable”?
    • How do you distinguish contributing factors vs root cause?

Thinking Exercise

Timeline Reconstruction

Before coding, take five alert timestamps and reconstruct a timeline with gaps:

10:02 Alert fired
10:06 On-call ack
10:12 Rollback started
10:25 Latency normal
10:35 Post-incident review started

Questions while analyzing:

  • What is the detection time?
  • What is the time to mitigate?
  • What missing events would you want to capture next time?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What makes a postmortem blameless?”
  2. “How do you measure MTTR?”
  3. “What is the difference between detection time and resolution time?”
  4. “How do you decide action items after an outage?”
  5. “Why are timelines important in incident response?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with a single data source Build the timeline from just alerts before adding logs.

Hint 2: Normalize timestamps Convert everything into a single time zone.

Hint 3: Add categories Mark events as detection, mitigation, recovery, learning.

Hint 4: Focus on readability Make the timeline easy to scan for humans.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Incident response “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” by O’Reilly Ch. 7
Postmortems “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 15
Ops practices “The Practice of Cloud System Administration” by Limoncelli Ch. 3

Project 6: Latency Budget Visualizer

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Python
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Go, Rust, JavaScript
  • Coolness Level: Level 3: Genuinely Clever
  • Business Potential: 2. The “Micro-SaaS / Pro Tool”
  • Difficulty: Level 2: Intermediate
  • Knowledge Area: Performance / Tracing
  • Software or Tool: OpenTelemetry (conceptual)
  • Main Book: “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan

What you’ll build: A tool that breaks down end-to-end latency into per-service budgets and visualizes where time is spent.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It forces you to understand how latency budgets are allocated and how traces expose bottlenecks.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Defining a latency budget per service
  • Mapping trace spans to budget categories
  • Visualizing over-budget segments clearly

Key Concepts

  • Latency decomposition: Distributed Systems Observability — Cindy Sridharan
  • Performance budgets: Release It! — Michael Nygard
  • Tracing analysis: Observability Engineering — Charity Majors et al.

Difficulty: Intermediate Time estimate: 1-2 weeks Prerequisites: Basic tracing knowledge, data visualization basics

Real World Outcome

You will have a report that shows each service’s latency contribution against a target budget, highlighting which spans exceeded their share.

Example Output:

$ ./latency_budget_viewer --trace trace.json --target 500ms
Target total latency: 500ms
Service breakdown:
  frontend: 120ms (budget 100ms)  OVER
  auth: 40ms (budget 50ms)        OK
  payment: 200ms (budget 150ms)   OVER
  database: 80ms (budget 100ms)   OK

The Core Question You’re Answering

“Where is my latency budget being consumed, and by whom?”

Latency is not a single number — it is a chain of contributors. This project teaches you to think in budgets, not just averages.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Latency SLIs
    • Why is p95 or p99 more important than average?
    • How do you define acceptable latency per endpoint?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 6 — Beyer et al.
  2. Trace span timing
    • How do spans represent time spent in a service?
    • What is the difference between synchronous and asynchronous spans?
    • Book Reference: “Distributed Systems Observability” Ch. 4 — Cindy Sridharan

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Budget allocation
    • How do you split the total budget among services?
    • Should critical services get more budget?
  2. Visualization
    • What chart makes overshoot obvious?
    • How do you highlight outliers?

Thinking Exercise

Latency Budget Math

Before coding, allocate a 400ms budget across 4 services with these weights: 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%.

Total: 400ms
Weights: 40/30/20/10

Questions while calculating:

  • Which service has the strictest budget?
  • What happens if one service exceeds budget by 2x?
  • How would retries change the totals?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “Why is p99 latency important?”
  2. “How do you allocate latency budgets across services?”
  3. “What does a span represent in tracing?”
  4. “How do you detect which service is the bottleneck?”
  5. “What’s the difference between client and server latency?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with a simple trace Use a single trace with 3-4 spans first.

Hint 2: Normalize timings Ensure all spans use the same clock reference.

Hint 3: Make budgets explicit Store budget values with each service.

Hint 4: Focus on visual clarity Use clear labels for over-budget spans.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Tracing analysis “Distributed Systems Observability” by Cindy Sridharan Ch. 4
Performance budgets “Release It!” by Michael Nygard Ch. 3
SLOs and latency “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 6

Project 7: Alert Fatigue Analyzer

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Python
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Go, Ruby, JavaScript
  • Coolness Level: Level 2: Practical but Forgettable
  • Business Potential: 2. The “Micro-SaaS / Pro Tool”
  • Difficulty: Level 2: Intermediate
  • Knowledge Area: Alerting / Reliability
  • Software or Tool: Prometheus Alertmanager (conceptual)
  • Main Book: “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al.

What you’ll build: A tool that analyzes alert history to identify noisy alerts, redundant rules, and low-actionability signals.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It forces you to think about alerts as human signals tied to action, not just metric thresholds.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Defining alert quality metrics (precision, actionability)
  • Grouping alerts by root cause patterns
  • Generating recommendations for alert reduction

Key Concepts

  • Alerting philosophy: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.
  • Monitoring design: The Reliability Engineering Workbook — O’Reilly
  • Signal-to-noise: Observability Engineering — Charity Majors et al.

Difficulty: Intermediate Time estimate: 1-2 weeks Prerequisites: Understanding of alerts and on-call process

Real World Outcome

You will have a report that ranks alerts by noise level, shows which alerts frequently resolve without action, and recommends which to downgrade or remove.

Example Output:

$ ./alert_analyzer --input alerts.csv
Total alerts analyzed: 3,240
High-noise alerts:
  - CPU > 70% (fires 220/month, no action taken 85%)
  - Disk usage > 80% (fires 95/month, auto-resolved 90%)
Recommendations:
  - Remove CPU > 70% alert
  - Replace Disk usage > 80% with forecast-based alert

The Core Question You’re Answering

“Which alerts are actually helping humans respond to incidents?”

This project forces you to evaluate alerts by their impact, not by how easy they are to create.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Alert quality
    • What makes an alert actionable?
    • How do you measure false positives?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 6 — Beyer et al.
  2. On-call workflow
    • How are alerts acknowledged and resolved?
    • What does “auto-resolved” imply?
    • Book Reference: “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” Ch. 7 — O’Reilly

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Noise detection
    • What threshold defines “noisy”?
    • How do you track repeated alerts with no action?
  2. Recommendation rules
    • When should an alert be removed vs tuned?
    • How do you group alerts by root cause?

Thinking Exercise

Alert Triage

Before coding, classify these alerts as actionable or noisy:

- Disk usage > 90% for 5 minutes
- Error rate > 5% for 2 minutes
- CPU > 70% for 1 hour
- Payment failures > 1% for 5 minutes

Questions while classifying:

  • Which alerts reflect user impact?
  • Which are symptoms without direct action?
  • How would you reduce noise?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What makes an alert actionable?”
  2. “How do you reduce alert fatigue?”
  3. “What is the difference between an alert and an SLO violation?”
  4. “How do you measure false positives in alerting?”
  5. “Why should alerts be tied to user impact?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with frequency counts Identify alerts that fire too often.

Hint 2: Track action rates Label which alerts led to mitigation.

Hint 3: Cluster similar alerts Group by service and symptom.

Hint 4: Suggest policy changes Map recommendations to SLO-driven alerts.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Monitoring “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 6
Incident response “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” by O’Reilly Ch. 7
Observability signals “Observability Engineering” by Charity Majors et al. Ch. 2

Project 8: Chaos Experiment Playbook Generator

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Python
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Go, Ruby, JavaScript
  • Coolness Level: Level 3: Genuinely Clever
  • Business Potential: 1. The “Resume Gold”
  • Difficulty: Level 2: Intermediate
  • Knowledge Area: Chaos Engineering
  • Software or Tool: Chaos Engineering principles
  • Main Book: “Chaos Engineering” by Casey Rosenthal et al.

What you’ll build: A generator that converts system architecture input into a chaos experiment playbook with hypotheses, blast radius, and metrics to watch.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It formalizes chaos engineering into repeatable experiments and links them to SLOs and telemetry.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Defining steady-state metrics for experiments
  • Designing safe blast radius boundaries
  • Mapping failure types to expected symptoms

Key Concepts

  • Chaos principles: Chaos Engineering — Casey Rosenthal et al.
  • Failure patterns: Release It! — Michael Nygard
  • SLO alignment: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.

Difficulty: Intermediate Time estimate: 1-2 weeks Prerequisites: Understanding of system architecture and SLOs

Real World Outcome

You will have a playbook that outlines chaos experiments for different failure modes, with clear hypotheses and measurable outcomes.

Example Output:

$ ./chaos_playbook --system ecommerce_arch.yaml
Experiment: Kill payment-service instances
Hypothesis: Error rate stays < 1% due to retry and fallback
Steady-state metrics:
  - payment_success_rate
  - checkout_latency_p95
Blast radius: 10% of instances
Rollback criteria: error rate > 2% for 5 minutes

The Core Question You’re Answering

“How can I safely prove my system survives real failures?”

Chaos engineering is not random destruction — it is controlled, hypothesis-driven validation.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Steady-state definition
    • What metrics represent “healthy” operation?
    • How do you measure them reliably?
    • Book Reference: “Chaos Engineering” Ch. 1 — Casey Rosenthal et al.
  2. Blast radius
    • How do you limit impact of experiments?
    • What safeguards stop runaway failures?
    • Book Reference: “Release It!” Ch. 3 — Michael Nygard

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Hypothesis framing
    • What should remain true during the experiment?
    • How will you detect failure quickly?
  2. Safety controls
    • What threshold triggers automatic rollback?
    • Which services are off-limits?

Thinking Exercise

Failure Mapping

Before coding, map these failures to likely symptoms:

- Network latency spike
- Database read-only mode
- Cache eviction storm

Questions while mapping:

  • Which metrics would reveal each failure?
  • How would user experience change?
  • Which alerts should fire first?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What is the goal of chaos engineering?”
  2. “What is a steady-state hypothesis?”
  3. “How do you control blast radius?”
  4. “Why tie chaos experiments to SLOs?”
  5. “What’s the difference between chaos testing and load testing?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with one experiment Pick a single service and one failure mode.

Hint 2: Define steady state clearly Choose 2-3 metrics that define “healthy.”

Hint 3: Add rollback criteria Every experiment needs a hard stop.

Hint 4: Keep it reproducible Use the same format for every experiment.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Chaos principles “Chaos Engineering” by Casey Rosenthal et al. Ch. 1
Failure patterns “Release It!” by Michael Nygard Ch. 3
SLO alignment “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 4

Project 9: Golden Signals Correlator

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Python
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Go, Rust, Node.js
  • Coolness Level: Level 3: Genuinely Clever
  • Business Potential: 2. The “Micro-SaaS / Pro Tool”
  • Difficulty: Level 2: Intermediate
  • Knowledge Area: Observability / Analytics
  • Software or Tool: Prometheus (conceptual)
  • Main Book: “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al.

What you’ll build: A correlation tool that aligns the four golden signals (latency, traffic, errors, saturation) for a service and identifies which signal leads outages.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It forces you to operationalize the golden signals and understand their causal relationships.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Defining the four signals in metrics
  • Correlating time-series with offset analysis
  • Identifying leading indicators vs lagging indicators

Key Concepts

  • Golden signals: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.
  • Time-series analysis: Prometheus: Up & Running — Brian Brazil
  • Causality in signals: Observability Engineering — Charity Majors et al.

Difficulty: Intermediate Time estimate: 1-2 weeks Prerequisites: Metrics basics, time-series familiarity

Real World Outcome

You will have a report that shows which golden signal spikes first during incidents, helping you design better alerts.

Example Output:

$ ./golden_signal_correlator --metrics metrics.csv
Detected incident window: 14:03–14:22
Leading signal: saturation (CPU) spike at 14:02
Lagging signals: error rate spike at 14:05, latency spike at 14:06
Recommendation: alert on saturation earlier

The Core Question You’re Answering

“Which signals give me the earliest warning of failure?”

This project teaches you to move from reactive alerting to predictive monitoring.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Golden signals
    • What are the four golden signals?
    • How do they map to user experience?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 6 — Beyer et al.
  2. Correlation vs causation
    • What does correlation reveal (and not reveal)?
    • How do you detect lead/lag relationships?
    • Book Reference: “Prometheus: Up & Running” Ch. 3 — Brian Brazil

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Signal selection
    • Which metrics best represent each golden signal?
    • How do you normalize units for comparison?
  2. Incident detection
    • How will you identify the incident window?
    • What thresholds define anomaly windows?

Thinking Exercise

Signal Ordering

Before coding, guess the order in which these signals might spike during a database slowdown:

Latency, Errors, Saturation, Traffic

Questions while analyzing:

  • Which signal spikes first and why?
  • Which signal is the most direct indicator of user impact?
  • How would caching change the ordering?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What are the four golden signals?”
  2. “Why is saturation a leading indicator?”
  3. “How do you distinguish causation from correlation?”
  4. “Which signals should trigger paging?”
  5. “How do golden signals map to SLIs?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with one service Use a single service’s metrics before multi-service.

Hint 2: Align timestamps Ensure all signals use the same time resolution.

Hint 3: Find peaks Identify spikes rather than averages.

Hint 4: Compare lag Measure time offsets between signal peaks.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Golden signals “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 6
Metrics analysis “Prometheus: Up & Running” by Brian Brazil Ch. 3
Observability correlation “Observability Engineering” by Charity Majors et al. Ch. 4

Project 10: Reliability Game Day Simulator

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Go
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Python, Rust, Java
  • Coolness Level: Level 3: Genuinely Clever
  • Business Potential: 1. The “Resume Gold”
  • Difficulty: Level 3: Advanced
  • Knowledge Area: Reliability / Chaos Engineering
  • Software or Tool: Game Day playbooks
  • Main Book: “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” by O’Reilly

What you’ll build: A simulator that orchestrates a “game day” incident scenario with injected failures, telemetry checks, and response scoring.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It brings together telemetry, SLOs, incident response, and chaos engineering in a realistic rehearsal.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Designing realistic failure scenarios
  • Scoring response quality and timing
  • Linking telemetry changes to expected outcomes

Key Concepts

  • Game days: The Reliability Engineering Workbook — O’Reilly
  • Failure injection: Chaos Engineering — Casey Rosenthal et al.
  • Incident response: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.

Difficulty: Advanced Time estimate: 1 month+ Prerequisites: Familiarity with observability tools, SLOs, and incident response basics

Real World Outcome

You will have a simulation that runs a full incident scenario and outputs a scorecard with detection time, mitigation time, and adherence to the playbook.

Example Output:

$ ./gameday_sim --scenario payment_outage.yaml
Scenario: Payment service outage
Detection time: 4m 12s
Mitigation time: 18m 44s
SLO impact: 0.08% error budget consumed
Score: 82/100
Recommendations:
  - Improve alert routing
  - Add dashboard for payment failure rate

The Core Question You’re Answering

“Can my team respond effectively to the failures we fear most?”

This project simulates real incidents to test not just systems, but human response and playbooks.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Game day methodology
    • What makes a game day effective?
    • How do you structure a scenario?
    • Book Reference: “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” Ch. 7 — O’Reilly
  2. SLO impact tracking
    • How do you measure error budget impact during an incident?
    • Which telemetry signals reflect customer impact?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 4 — Beyer et al.

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Scenario realism
    • Which failures are most likely and most damaging?
    • How do you inject them safely in a simulator?
  2. Scoring
    • What defines a “good” response?
    • How do you grade detection vs mitigation?

Thinking Exercise

Scenario Design

Before coding, design a scenario with:

- Failure: cache outage
- Expected impact: higher latency, higher DB load
- Mitigation: fallback to DB with throttling

Questions while planning:

  • Which metrics should show the impact first?
  • What alert should fire?
  • How should the response be graded?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “What is a game day and why run one?”
  2. “How do you measure incident response effectiveness?”
  3. “What metrics should be tracked during an outage?”
  4. “How do SLOs tie into incident response?”
  5. “Why simulate failures instead of waiting for real ones?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with a scripted scenario Use a fixed timeline before adding variability.

Hint 2: Define success metrics Pick 3-4 metrics that define a good response.

Hint 3: Add scoring rules Score detection and mitigation separately.

Hint 4: Make it repeatable Ensure the same scenario can be replayed.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Game days “The Reliability Engineering Workbook” by O’Reilly Ch. 7
Chaos engineering “Chaos Engineering” by Casey Rosenthal et al. Ch. 1
SLO impact “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 4

Project Comparison Table

Project Difficulty Time Depth of Understanding Fun Factor
Structured Logging Contract Tester Beginner Weekend Medium Medium
Prometheus Metrics Design Lab Intermediate 1-2 weeks High Medium
Trace Context Propagation Simulator Intermediate 1-2 weeks High High
SLO and Error Budget Calculator Beginner Weekend Medium Medium
Incident Timeline & Postmortem Builder Intermediate 1-2 weeks High Medium
Latency Budget Visualizer Intermediate 1-2 weeks High High
Alert Fatigue Analyzer Intermediate 1-2 weeks Medium Medium
Chaos Experiment Playbook Generator Intermediate 1-2 weeks High High
Golden Signals Correlator Intermediate 1-2 weeks High High
Reliability Game Day Simulator Advanced 1 month+ Very High High

Recommendation

Start with Structured Logging Contract Tester to build the habit of schema-first telemetry. Then move to Prometheus Metrics Design Lab to internalize metric types and labels. After that, build the Trace Context Propagation Simulator to master causality. With those foundations, the SLO and Error Budget Calculator and Incident Timeline Builder will make reliability measurable. Finish with Chaos Experiment Playbook Generator and Reliability Game Day Simulator to validate systems under failure.

Final Overall Project: Full Observability & Reliability Platform (Mini SRE Stack)

  • File: OBSERVABILITY_RELIABILITY_PROJECTS.md
  • Main Programming Language: Go
  • Alternative Programming Languages: Python, Rust, Java
  • Coolness Level: Level 4: Hardcore Tech Flex
  • Business Potential: 4. The “Open Core” Infrastructure
  • Difficulty: Level 3: Advanced
  • Knowledge Area: Observability / SRE
  • Software or Tool: OpenTelemetry + Prometheus stack (conceptual)
  • Main Book: “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al.

What you’ll build: A mini observability platform that collects structured logs, metrics, and traces from multiple services, computes SLO compliance, and runs controlled chaos experiments with automatic reporting.

Why it teaches Observability & Reliability: It forces you to integrate all observability signals into reliability decisions, exactly how real SRE teams operate.

Core challenges you’ll face:

  • Correlating logs, metrics, and traces into a unified incident view
  • Defining SLIs and SLOs across services
  • Designing safe chaos experiments with measurable outcomes

Key Concepts

  • Observability signal correlation: Observability Engineering — Charity Majors et al.
  • SLOs and error budgets: Site Reliability Engineering — Beyer et al.
  • Chaos validation: Chaos Engineering — Casey Rosenthal et al.

Difficulty: Advanced Time estimate: 1 month+ Prerequisites: Completion of Projects 1–6, basic distributed systems knowledge

Real World Outcome

You will have a working mini SRE stack with dashboards showing system health, SLO compliance, and chaos experiment reports. You will be able to point to a single interface that answers: “Are we within our error budget?” and “Which service is causing the slowdown?”

Example Output:

SLO Dashboard:
  Checkout success rate: 99.92% (SLO 99.9%) OK
  Latency p95: 280ms (SLO 300ms) OK
Error Budget Remaining: 63%
Chaos Experiment: payment-service latency injection
Result: SLO maintained, error budget impact 0.03%

The Core Question You’re Answering

“Can I connect all telemetry signals to reliability decisions in one system?”

This project is the culmination: you will unify observability and reliability into a single operational platform.

Concepts You Must Understand First

Stop and research these before coding:

  1. Signal correlation
    • How do you link logs, metrics, and traces via IDs?
    • How do you avoid contradictory telemetry?
    • Book Reference: “Observability Engineering” Ch. 4 — Charity Majors et al.
  2. Reliability policy
    • How do SLOs influence deployments?
    • How do error budgets trigger change freezes?
    • Book Reference: “Site Reliability Engineering” Ch. 4 — Beyer et al.

Questions to Guide Your Design

Before implementing, think through these:

  1. Architecture
    • Where will telemetry be ingested and stored?
    • How will users query and visualize data?
  2. Safety
    • How will chaos experiments be gated by SLO status?
    • How do you prevent cascading failures?

Thinking Exercise

Signal Correlation Map

Before coding, draw a map showing how request_id ties logs to traces and metrics:

request_id -> log entry -> trace span -> metric label

Questions while diagramming:

  • Which signal is the source of truth for errors?
  • How do you handle missing IDs?
  • How do you verify correlation correctness?

The Interview Questions They’ll Ask

Prepare to answer these:

  1. “How do logs, metrics, and traces complement each other?”
  2. “How do SLOs guide engineering decisions?”
  3. “How do you validate reliability with chaos experiments?”
  4. “What is the difference between monitoring and observability?”
  5. “How do you prevent alert fatigue?”

Hints in Layers

Hint 1: Start with a single service Build ingestion and correlation for one service first.

Hint 2: Add SLO computation Compute SLO compliance from metrics before scaling.

Hint 3: Layer in traces Only once logs and metrics are stable, add tracing.

Hint 4: Gate chaos experiments Run experiments only when error budgets are healthy.

Books That Will Help

Topic Book Chapter
Observability correlation “Observability Engineering” by Charity Majors et al. Ch. 4
SRE practices “Site Reliability Engineering” by Beyer et al. Ch. 4
Chaos engineering “Chaos Engineering” by Casey Rosenthal et al. Ch. 1

Summary

Project Primary Focus Key Outcome
Structured Logging Contract Tester Structured logs Log consistency and queryability
Prometheus Metrics Design Lab Metrics Accurate monitoring dashboards
Trace Context Propagation Simulator Tracing End-to-end request causality
SLO and Error Budget Calculator Reliability math Error budget visibility
Incident Timeline & Postmortem Builder Incident response Actionable postmortems
Latency Budget Visualizer Performance Budget-based latency insights
Alert Fatigue Analyzer Alerting Reduced noise, higher signal
Chaos Experiment Playbook Generator Chaos engineering Safe failure validation
Golden Signals Correlator Signal correlation Early failure detection
Reliability Game Day Simulator SRE practice Trained incident response
Full Observability & Reliability Platform Integration Unified SRE stack