1. Purpose

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Purpose

A complete treatment of Purpose 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 Purpose

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 Purpose

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, Purpose 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 Purpose

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Purpose 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 Purpose

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 Purpose

• 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 Purpose

Operations Note for Purpose

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.

Purpose 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.

2. Fit and Boundaries

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Fit and Boundaries

A complete treatment of Fit and Boundaries 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 Fit and Boundaries

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 Fit and Boundaries

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, Fit and Boundaries 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 Fit and Boundaries

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Fit and Boundaries 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 Fit and Boundaries

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 Fit and Boundaries

• 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 Fit and Boundaries

Operations Note for Fit and Boundaries

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.

Fit and Boundaries 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.

3. Minimum Requirements

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Minimum Requirements

A complete treatment of Minimum Requirements 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 Minimum Requirements

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 Minimum Requirements

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, Minimum Requirements 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 Minimum Requirements

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Minimum Requirements 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 Minimum Requirements

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 Minimum Requirements

• 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 Minimum Requirements

Operations Note for Minimum Requirements

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.

Minimum Requirements 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.

4. Preparation

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Preparation

A complete treatment of Preparation 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 Preparation

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 Preparation

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, Preparation 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 Preparation

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Preparation 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 Preparation

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 Preparation

• 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 Preparation

Operations Note for Preparation

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.

Preparation 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.

5. Installation

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Installation

A complete treatment of Installation 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 Installation

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 Installation

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, Installation 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 Installation

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Installation 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 Installation

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 Installation

• 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 Installation

Operations Note for Installation

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.

Installation 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.

6. SSH and Keys

Deep Dive and Submission Example for SSH and Keys

A complete treatment of SSH and Keys 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 SSH and Keys

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 SSH and Keys

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, SSH and Keys 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 SSH and Keys

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, SSH and Keys 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 SSH and Keys

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 SSH and Keys

• 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 SSH and Keys

Operations Note for SSH and Keys

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.

SSH and Keys 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.

7. Clone Repository

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Clone Repository

A complete treatment of Clone Repository 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 Clone Repository

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 Clone Repository

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, Clone Repository 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 Clone Repository

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Clone Repository 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 Clone Repository

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 Clone Repository

• 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 Clone Repository

Operations Note for Clone Repository

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.

Clone Repository 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.

8. Provisioning

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Provisioning

A complete treatment of Provisioning 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 Provisioning

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 Provisioning

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, Provisioning 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 Provisioning

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Provisioning 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 Provisioning

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 Provisioning

• 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 Provisioning

Operations Note for Provisioning

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.

Provisioning 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.

9. Validation

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Validation

A complete treatment of Validation 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 Validation

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 Validation

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, Validation 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 Validation

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Validation 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 Validation

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 Validation

• 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 Validation

Operations Note for Validation

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.

Validation 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.

10. Common WSL Issues

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Common WSL Issues

A complete treatment of Common WSL Issues 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 Common WSL Issues

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 Common WSL Issues

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, Common WSL Issues 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 Common WSL Issues

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Common WSL Issues 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 Common WSL Issues

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 Common WSL Issues

• 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 Common WSL Issues

Operations Note for Common WSL Issues

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.

Common WSL Issues 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.

11. Security Rules

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Security Rules

A complete treatment of Security Rules 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 Rules

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 Rules

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 Rules 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 Rules

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Security Rules 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 Rules

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 Rules

• 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 Rules

Operations Note for Security Rules

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 Rules 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.

12. Cleanup

Deep Dive and Submission Example for Cleanup

A complete treatment of Cleanup 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 Cleanup

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 Cleanup

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, Cleanup 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 Cleanup

This section is not just a definition. In the workshop, Cleanup 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 Cleanup

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 Cleanup

• 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 Cleanup

Operations Note for Cleanup

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.

Cleanup 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.

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