FinOps — Cloud Financial Operations

Generates cloud financial operations assessment and strategy: FinOps maturity evaluation (Crawl/Walk/Run), cost visibility analysis, optimization opportunity identification, governance model design, and unit economics framework.

Guiding Principle

Cloud cost is not an infrastructure problem — it is a business problem. Every cloud unit of spend must trace to a business value or be eliminated.

1. Visibility before optimization. You cannot optimize what you do not measure. The first step is always: who spends how much on what and why?
2. Unit economics over absolute spend. "Large monthly cloud spend" says nothing. "Cost per transaction processed" is actionable. All spend must be expressed in business units.
3. FinOps is culture, not tooling. Cost management tools without distributed accountability only produce dashboards nobody looks at.

Inputs

• $1 — Path to cloud infrastructure analysis (IaC, billing exports, architecture diagrams)
• $2 — Assessment scope: full (default), assessment (current state only), optimization (recommendations only)

Parse from $ARGUMENTS.

Parameters:

• {MODO}: piloto-auto (default) | desatendido | supervisado | paso-a-paso
• {FORMATO}: markdown (default) | html | dual | xlsx (cost breakdowns)
• {MODO_OPERACIONAL}: assessment (default, current cloud cost analysis) | optimization (cost reduction plan with ROI) | framework (FinOps practice design from scratch)
• {VARIANTE}: ejecutiva (~40% — cost summary + top 5 optimizations) | técnica (full, default)

Input Requirements

Mandatory:

• Cloud provider(s) in use (AWS, Azure, GCP, multi-cloud)
• Infrastructure-as-Code or architecture description (Terraform, CloudFormation, ARM, diagrams)

Recommended:

• Billing data or Cost Explorer exports (last 3-6 months)
• Resource tagging strategy documentation
• Current cost allocation model
• Cloud architecture diagrams
• Reserved instance / savings plan inventory
• Auto-scaling configurations

Assumptions & Limits

Assumptions:

• At least one major cloud provider (AWS/Azure/GCP)
• Monthly cloud spend above the threshold where FinOps overhead produces net savings
• Organization has engineering teams managing cloud resources

Cannot do:

• Access live billing APIs (works with exported data or IaC analysis)
• Negotiate contracts with cloud providers
• Implement changes in cloud accounts
• Provide exact monetary predictions (provides magnitude estimates and percentages)

Workarounds When Inputs Missing

Missing Input	Impact	Workaround
No billing data	Cannot quantify waste	Analyze IaC for anti-patterns (oversized instances, no auto-scaling, no spot); flag as [INFERENCIA]
No tagging strategy	Cannot allocate costs	Propose tagging taxonomy based on org structure
No architecture diagrams	Cannot identify optimization targets	Reverse-engineer from IaC; flag confidence level
No reservation data	Cannot assess commitment coverage	Analyze usage patterns from IaC for commitment recommendations

Edge Cases

• Multi-cloud: Separate analysis per provider + cross-cloud optimization (workload placement).
• Startup/fast growth: Focus on unit economics and auto-scaling, not reservations (demand unpredictable).
• Regulated industry: Data residency constraints limit optimization options. Document compliance impact on cost.
• Kubernetes/containerized: Focus on cluster rightsizing, namespace cost allocation, spot/preemptible for stateless.
• Serverless-heavy: Focus on invocation optimization, memory/duration tuning, cold start cost.
• No engineering ownership: FinOps framework mode — establish accountability first, optimize second.

Trade-off Matrix

Decision	Enables	Constrains	When to Use
Full assessment	Complete visibility + optimization plan	4-6 days, requires billing data	Annual FinOps review, cloud migration planning
Optimization-only	Quick wins, immediate savings	Misses governance/culture gaps	Known waste, need fast ROI
Framework design	Sustainable practice, long-term value	No immediate savings	Greenfield FinOps, post-reorg

8-Section Framework

S1: FinOps Maturity Assessment

Evaluate against FinOps Foundation Crawl/Walk/Run model across 6 domains:

• Understand: Cost visibility, allocation, reporting
• Quantify: Budgeting, forecasting, benchmarking
• Optimize: Rightsizing, rate optimization, usage optimization
• Govern: Policies, guardrails, anomaly detection
• Organize: Team structure, RACI, training
• Culture: Accountability, collaboration between engineering/finance/business

Score each domain 1-5. Composite maturity level.

S2: Cost Visibility & Allocation

Current cost breakdown: by service, by team/product, by environment (prod/staging/dev). Untagged spend %. Cost allocation model assessment. Tagging taxonomy recommendation.

S3: Waste Identification

Per category: idle resources, oversized instances, unattached storage, unused reservations, over-provisioned databases, zombie resources. Estimated monthly waste per category. Total waste as % of spend.

S4: Optimization Opportunities

Three tiers:

• Quick Wins (0-30 days): Rightsizing, delete unused, schedule non-prod. Expected savings %.
• Medium-term (1-3 months): Reserved instances/savings plans, spot/preemptible adoption, architecture changes.
• Strategic (3-12 months): Multi-cloud arbitrage, serverless migration, platform consolidation.

Per opportunity: estimated savings, implementation effort, risk, ROI timeline.

S5: Unit Economics Framework

Define cost-per-business-unit metrics: cost per transaction, cost per user, cost per API call, cost per GB processed. Map infrastructure cost to business value. Trend analysis if historical data available.

S6: Rate Optimization Strategy

Reservation/savings plan coverage analysis. Commitment vs. on-demand ratio. Spot/preemptible strategy for eligible workloads. EDP/PPA (Enterprise Discount Program/Private Pricing Agreement) assessment.

S7: Governance & Guardrails

Budget policies, alerting thresholds, anomaly detection rules, approval workflows for high-cost resources, tagging enforcement, cost review cadence, escalation matrix.

S8: FinOps Operating Model

Team structure (centralized, embedded, federated). RACI for cost decisions. Reporting cadence and audience. Tool recommendations. Training plan for engineering teams.

Casos Borde

Caso	Estrategia de Manejo
Organizacion con zero tagging y zero billing exports	Analisis basado exclusivamente en IaC; toda recomendacion marcada [INFERENCIA]; proponer tagging taxonomy como prerequisito antes de optimizacion
Migracion multi-cloud activa (workloads moviendose entre proveedores)	Congelar analisis en snapshot temporal; separar recomendaciones por cloud destino; agregar capa de arbitraje cross-cloud
Startup en hyper-growth con costos duplicandose cada trimestre	Priorizar unit economics y auto-scaling sobre reservaciones; enfocar en costo por transaccion, no en gasto absoluto
Organizacion con contratos enterprise (EDP/PPA) ya firmados	Analizar dentro de restricciones contractuales; enfocar optimizacion en rightsizing y waste, no en rate optimization

Decisiones y Trade-offs

Decision	Alternativa Descartada	Justificacion
Expresar costos en magnitudes y porcentajes, nunca en valores exactos	Reportar cifras exactas de billing	Los valores exactos caducan rapidamente y crean compromisos contractuales implicitos; las magnitudes son accionables sin ser vinculantes
Evaluar madurez FinOps con el modelo Crawl/Walk/Run de FinOps Foundation	Crear modelo de madurez propietario	El framework de FinOps Foundation es el estandar de la industria; usar otro reduce comparabilidad con benchmarks externos
Incluir unit economics como seccion mandatoria	Limitarse a analisis de gasto absoluto	El gasto absoluto sin contexto de negocio no permite tomar decisiones; costo por transaccion es la metrica que conecta infra con valor
Separar modos operacionales (assessment/optimization/framework)	Un unico flujo monolitico para todos los casos	Cada modo tiene audiencia y profundidad distintas; forzar el analisis completo cuando solo se necesita quick wins desperdicia tiempo

Knowledge Graph

graph TD
    subgraph Core["FinOps Core"]
        A[metodologia-finops]
        A1[S1: Maturity Assessment]
        A2[S2: Cost Visibility]
        A3[S3: Waste Identification]
        A4[S4: Optimization]
        A5[S5: Unit Economics]
        A6[S6: Rate Optimization]
        A7[S7: Governance]
        A8[S8: Operating Model]
    end
    subgraph Inputs["Inputs"]
        I1[IaC / Terraform / CloudFormation]
        I2[Billing Exports / Cost Explorer]
        I3[Architecture Diagrams]
        I4[Tagging Strategy Docs]
    end
    subgraph Outputs["Outputs"]
        O1[FinOps Assessment Report]
        O2[Quick Wins Summary]
        O3[Optimization Roadmap]
    end
    subgraph Related["Related Skills"]
        R1[metodologia-technical-feasibility]
        R2[metodologia-cost-estimation]
        R3[metodologia-software-viability]
        R4[metodologia-sector-intelligence]
    end
    I1 --> A
    I2 --> A
    I3 --> A
    I4 --> A
    A --> A1 --> A2 --> A3 --> A4
    A4 --> A5 --> A6 --> A7 --> A8
    A --> O1
    A --> O2
    A --> O3
    A --- R1
    A --- R2
    A --- R3
    R4 --> A

Output Templates

Formato MD (default):

# FinOps Assessment — {proyecto}
## Resumen Ejecutivo
> Hallazgo clave en 3 lineas.
## S1: Evaluacion de Madurez FinOps
| Dominio | Score (1-5) | Evidencia | Recomendacion |
|---------|-------------|-----------|---------------|
## S2-S8: [secciones completas]
## Roadmap de Optimizacion
```mermaid
gantt
    title Roadmap FinOps
    section Quick Wins
    ...

Apendice: Datos de Soporte

**Formato XLSX (para audiencia financiera):**

Hoja 1: Resumen Ejecutivo (madurez + top 5 optimizaciones) Hoja 2: Desglose de Costos por Servicio/Equipo/Ambiente Hoja 3: Inventario de Waste con Ahorro Estimado (%) Hoja 4: Oportunidades de Optimizacion (esfuerzo x impacto) Hoja 5: Unit Economics (costo por transaccion/usuario/API call) Hoja 6: Roadmap de Implementacion con Timeline

**Formato HTML (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `FinOps_Assessment_{project}_{WIP}.html`
- Estructura: HTML self-contained branded (Design System MetodologIA v5). Light-First Technical page con maturity radar chart, waste breakdown interactivo, y optimization roadmap con filtros por tier. WCAG AA, responsive, print-ready.

**Formato DOCX (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `FinOps_Assessment_{project}_{WIP}.docx`
- Generado con python-docx bajo Metodología Design System v5: portada, TOC automático, encabezados/pies de página con marca, tablas zebra, tipografía Poppins (headings navy), Montserrat (body), acentos dorados

**Formato PPTX (bajo demanda):**
- Filename: `{fase}_{entregable}_{cliente}_{WIP}.pptx`
- Generado via python-pptx con MetodologIA Design System v5. Slide master con gradiente navy, títulos Poppins, cuerpo Montserrat, acentos dorados. Máx 20 slides ejecutivo / 30 técnico. Notas del orador con referencias de evidencia. Secciones: FinOps Maturity Assessment, Cost Visibility & Waste Identification, Top Optimization Opportunities (Quick Wins / Medium / Strategic), Unit Economics, Governance & Operating Model, Roadmap de Implementación.

## Evaluacion

| Dimension | Peso | Criterio | Umbral Minimo |
|-----------|------|----------|---------------|
| Trigger Accuracy | 10% | El skill se activa correctamente ante prompts de FinOps, cloud cost, rightsizing | 7/10 |
| Completeness | 25% | Las 8 secciones estan pobladas con contenido basado en evidencia; unit economics definidos | 7/10 |
| Clarity | 20% | Ejecutivos no tecnicos pueden entender el resumen; costos expresados en magnitudes con contexto | 7/10 |
| Robustness | 20% | Edge cases cubiertos (multi-cloud, serverless, no billing data); workarounds documentados | 7/10 |
| Efficiency | 10% | El modo operacional correcto se selecciona segun contexto; no se genera analisis innecesario | 7/10 |
| Value Density | 15% | Cada optimizacion tiene ahorro estimado (%), esfuerzo, y timeline; zero recomendaciones genericas | 7/10 |

**Umbral minimo global: 7/10.** Si alguna dimension cae por debajo, el entregable requiere revision antes de entrega.

## Cross-Section Traceability

- S1 Maturity → S8 Operating Model (maturity gaps drive practice design)
- S2 Visibility → S3 Waste (visibility enables waste identification)
- S3 Waste → S4 Optimization (waste categories map to optimization actions)
- S4 Optimization → S5 Unit Economics (optimizations improve unit economics)
- S5 Unit Economics → S7 Governance (unit economics define budget thresholds)
- S6 Rate Optimization → S4 Optimization (rate optimization is a subset)
- S7 Governance → S8 Operating Model (governance requires organizational support)

## Escalation to Human

- Cloud spend at enterprise scale (enterprise-grade negotiation needed)
- Multi-cloud with no centralized visibility (requires FinOps platform selection)
- Engineering teams resistant to cost accountability (organizational change needed)
- Compliance constraints that conflict with optimization (legal review needed)
- Contract renegotiation opportunity (commercial/legal expertise)

## Execution Workflow

1. **Data Collection (1-2 hours):** Gather billing exports, IaC, architecture docs, tagging info
2. **Maturity & Visibility (2-3 hours):** Score maturity, map cost allocation, identify gaps
3. **Analysis (3-5 hours):** Waste identification, optimization opportunities, rate analysis, unit economics
4. **Strategy (2-3 hours):** Governance model, operating model, implementation roadmap

**Typical engagement:** 3-5 days for organizations with moderate cloud spend.

## Output Configuration

- **Language**: Spanish (Latin American, business register — simple, clear, concise, direct)
- **Attribution**: Expert committee of the MetodologIA Discovery Framework
- **Tagline**: *"Construido por profesionales, potenciado por la red agéntica de MetodologIA."*

## Output Artifact

**Primary:** `FinOps_Assessment_{project}.md` (or `.html` if `{FORMATO}=html|dual`) — Full 8-section FinOps assessment with cost breakdowns, optimization roadmap, and governance model.

**Secondary:** `FinOps_QuickWins_{project}.md` — Executive summary (S3 waste + S4 quick wins + estimated savings).

**Diagrams included:**
- Quadrant chart: optimization opportunities (savings potential x implementation effort)
- Mindmap: cost allocation taxonomy
- Gantt chart: optimization implementation timeline

## Validation Gate

- [ ] All 8 sections populated with evidence-based content
- [ ] Cost figures expressed in magnitudes, NEVER exact prices
- [ ] Every optimization opportunity has estimated savings % and effort level
- [ ] Unit economics defined with business-relevant metrics
- [ ] Governance model is actionable (not just "tag resources")
- [ ] FinOps maturity scored with observable evidence
- [ ] Cross-section traceability complete

## Output Format Protocol

| Format | Default | Description |
|--------|---------|-------------|
| `markdown` | Yes | Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient. |
| `html` | On demand | Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact. |
| `dual` | On demand | Both formats. |
| `xlsx` | On demand | Cost breakdown sheets (recommended for finance audience). |

## Operational Modes

| Mode | Focus | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| `assessment` (default) | Full 8-section analysis | Annual review, Phase 1/4 input |
| `optimization` | S3 + S4 + S6 deep, ROI-focused | Known waste, need quick savings |
| `framework` | S1 + S7 + S8 deep, practice design | Greenfield FinOps implementation |

## Additional Resources

### References (Progressive Disclosure — Level 3)
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/knowledge-graph.mmd` — Domain knowledge graph
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/body-of-knowledge.md` — Academic and industry sources
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/state-of-the-art.md` — Trends 2024-2026

### Examples
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/examples/sample-output.md` — Golden reference output
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/examples/sample-output.html` — Branded HTML
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/examples/sample-output.xlsx-spec.md` — Excel spec for cost data

### Prompts
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/prompts/use-case-prompts.md` — Ready-to-use prompts
- `Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/prompts/metaprompts.md` — Meta-strategies

---