1. Overall Architecture

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Overall Architecture

A complete treatment of Overall Architecture contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Overall Architecture

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Overall Architecture

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Overall Architecture is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Overall Architecture

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Overall Architecture is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Overall Architecture

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Overall Architecture

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Overall Architecture

Operations Note for Overall Architecture

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Overall Architecture is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

2. Execution Flow

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Execution Flow

A complete treatment of Execution Flow contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Execution Flow

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Execution Flow

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Execution Flow is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Execution Flow

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Execution Flow is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Execution Flow

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Execution Flow

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Execution Flow

Operations Note for Execution Flow

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Execution Flow is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

3. Inventory Model

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Inventory Model

A complete treatment of Inventory Model contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Inventory Model

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Inventory Model

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Inventory Model is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Inventory Model

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Inventory Model is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Inventory Model

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Inventory Model

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Inventory Model

Operations Note for Inventory Model

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Inventory Model is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

4. Variable Flow

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Variable Flow

A complete treatment of Variable Flow contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Variable Flow

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Variable Flow

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Variable Flow is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Variable Flow

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Variable Flow is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Variable Flow

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Variable Flow

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Variable Flow

Operations Note for Variable Flow

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Variable Flow is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

5. Role Model

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Role Model

A complete treatment of Role Model contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Role Model

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Role Model

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Role Model is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Role Model

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Role Model is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Role Model

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Role Model

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Role Model

Operations Note for Role Model

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Role Model is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

6. Secret Flow

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Secret Flow

A complete treatment of Secret Flow contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Secret Flow

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Secret Flow

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Secret Flow is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Secret Flow

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Secret Flow is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Secret Flow

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Secret Flow

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Secret Flow

Operations Note for Secret Flow

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Secret Flow is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

7. CI and Review Flow

Deep Dive and Submission Example for CI and Review Flow

A complete treatment of CI and Review Flow contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for CI and Review Flow

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for CI and Review Flow

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, CI and Review Flow is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of CI and Review Flow

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, CI and Review Flow is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for CI and Review Flow

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for CI and Review Flow

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for CI and Review Flow

Operations Note for CI and Review Flow

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

CI and Review Flow is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

8. Rollout Flow

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Rollout Flow

A complete treatment of Rollout Flow contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Rollout Flow

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Rollout Flow

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Rollout Flow is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Rollout Flow

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Rollout Flow is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Rollout Flow

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Rollout Flow

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Rollout Flow

Operations Note for Rollout Flow

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Rollout Flow is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

9. Troubleshooting Path

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Troubleshooting Path

A complete treatment of Troubleshooting Path contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Troubleshooting Path

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Troubleshooting Path

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Troubleshooting Path is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Troubleshooting Path

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Troubleshooting Path is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Troubleshooting Path

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Troubleshooting Path

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Troubleshooting Path

Operations Note for Troubleshooting Path

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Troubleshooting Path is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

10. Security Review

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Security Review

A complete treatment of Security Review contains both a technical artifact and a short domain explanation. The artifact can be an inventory, a playbook, a role, a template, a Vault file with dummy values, a CI configuration, or an evidence file. The explanation states why this path was chosen and which alternative was deliberately not used.

Minimal Artifacts for Security Review

submission/
  inventory/hosts.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md
  cleanup.md

For roles or collections, the structure expands:

submission/
  ansible.cfg
  collections/requirements.yml
  inventory/hosts.yml
  roles/<role>/defaults/main.yml
  roles/<role>/tasks/main.yml
  roles/<role>/handlers/main.yml
  playbooks/site.yml
  evidence.md

Grading Expectation for Security Review

A reviewable solution must be understandable to people who did not run it themselves. Screenshots or uncommented terminal output are not enough. Good evidence states context, command, relevant output, and assessment. If a module behaves differently in check mode, that limitation is explicitly documented.

Transfer to Real Teams

In a team context, Security Review is connected to code review, branch rules, CI, role ownership, release notes, and operational approval. Production-like usage also documents ownership, maintenance window, monitoring, alerting, and rollback criteria.

Practical Relevance of Security Review

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Security Review is always validated through a concrete flow: inspect inventory, prove target hosts, check the playbook, simulate the change, run the change, evaluate a second run, and document cleanup. This shows whether Ansible really models desired state or merely executes a command successfully once.

Example Flow for Security Review

ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --list-hosts
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml

The flow is intentionally complete. In real teams, some steps are automated but not skipped. CI can run syntax checks and linting; the domain review of scope, privileges, secret flows, and rollout risk remains a human engineering task.

Review Criteria for Security Review

• Inventory and patterns are narrower than all unless a reason is documented.
• Modules from ansible.builtin or reviewed collections are preferred.
• Shell or command tasks include changed_when, failed_when, or a clear reason.
• Variables are placed predictably and do not override each other surprisingly.
• Secrets do not appear in plaintext, diffs, debug tasks, or CI logs.
• The playbook can run repeatedly without unnecessary changes.
• Cleanup, fix-forward, or controlled acceptance of the target state is documented.

Common Failure Modes for Security Review

Operations Note for Security Review

For production-like usage, the lab must become a runbook. The runbook states target systems, owners, prerequisites, stop criteria, expected duration, validation, monitoring, and cleanup. Without those details, a playbook is executable but not operationally mature.

Security Review is a practical building block of the Ansible workshop. The desired state must be described, executed against a controlled scope, and validated before and after the run. A solid Ansible workflow answers four questions: which hosts are targeted, which change is performed, which privileges are required, and how success is measured.

Typical commands:

ansible --version
ansible-config dump --only-changed
ansible-inventory -i inventory/hosts.yml --graph
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --syntax-check
ansible-playbook -i inventory/hosts.yml playbooks/site.yml --check --diff

For reviews, a playbook is ready only when it proves its target scope, exposes its data sources, protects sensitive values, describes failure paths, and remains stable after a second run. If a module does not fully support check mode or diff mode, that limitation belongs in the runbook.

Common mistakes are broad patterns such as all, unclear variable sources, shell workarounds without idempotence, secrets in debug output, missing rollback notes, and missing separation between lab and production inventory.

flowchart LR
  user[Operator] --> control[Control Node]
  control --> inventory[Inventory]
  control --> playbook[Playbook]
  playbook --> tasks[Tasks]
  tasks --> modules[Modules]
  modules --> target[Managed Nodes]
  control --> evidence[Logs and Evidence]

Sources and Further References

• Official Ansible Community Documentation: https://docs.ansible.com/
• Ansible Getting Started: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/getting_started/index.html
• Inventory Guide: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/inventory_guide/index.html
• Playbook Guide: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/playbook_guide/index.html
• Module Index: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/ansible/builtin/index.html
• Vault Guide: https://docs.ansible.com/projects/ansible/latest/vault_guide/index.html
• Ansible Lint: https://ansible.readthedocs.io/projects/lint/
• Molecule: https://ansible.readthedocs.io/projects/molecule/
• AWX: https://github.com/ansible/awx
• Red Hat Certifications: https://www.redhat.com/en/services/certifications