BROCS

Resources

The assessment, the failure-mode library, the glossary, and the reasoning behind the five.

View as Markdown

Four things, all free, all vendor-neutral, none of them a lead-capture form.

  • The assessment. Twenty statements, four per letter. Score the ones that are true today and you get a scoreline like B3 R2 O1 C2 S0. It takes three minutes and it is designed to produce an uncomfortable number, because the useful output is a nameable gap rather than a good result.
  • The failure-mode library. Public incidents, each mapped to the letter that was skipped, each with a source you can check. Filterable by letter.
  • The glossary. The vocabulary, defined tersely and linkably.
  • Why five. Why these five and no other set, and what was considered and rejected.
  • Adjacent practices. How BROCS sits with DevOps, SRE, SecOps, platform engineering, and the compliance frameworks you already answer to.

The origin essay

BROCS was first written up at leomata.com/blog/brocs. That post is the origin citation; this site is the canonical home for the framework itself.

Reuse

Take it. The framework text is meant to be copied, quoted, translated, argued with, and put on your own slides. Attribution to brocs.fyi is the only ask. There is a machine version at /llms.txt and a full-text dump at /llms-full.txt if you are feeding it to something.

In this part of the surface

  • The BROCS assessment: Twenty statements, four per letter. Score the ones that are true today and you get a scoreline.
  • Failure-mode library: Public AI incidents, each mapped to the letter that was skipped, each with a source you can check.
  • Glossary: The BROCS vocabulary, defined tersely and linkably.
  • Why five: Why Build, Run, Observe, Control, Secure, and no other set. What was considered and rejected.
  • Adjacent practices: How BROCS sits with DevOps, SRE, SecOps, platform engineering, and the compliance frameworks you already answer to.