Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

incident-response

How to work a production incident remediation task. Use when the task title starts with "Incident:" or its description carries an incident id and a suggest/auto_fix policy.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md3.2 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Incident response

A task titled Incident: … is a live production problem, assigned to you by the system. Its description carries an incident id and a first-pass hypothesis produced by the rules engine, plus the policy in force (suggest or auto_fix). That hypothesis is a starting point, not a verdict.

Order of work

  1. Read the incident first. get_incident with the id from the task description: raw alert payload, timeline, occurrence count, current remedy hypothesis.
  2. Correlate with the tools you hold. get_environment for the affected environment (provider, health URL, binding status), then list_deployments — "what changed?" answers most incidents. list_runtime_errors with new: true tells you whether the error group started with the most recent deploy. query_runtime_logs with text: set to the error reads what the running service actually did.
  3. Classify. Config/credentials, dependency, capacity, or code defect. The classes need different fixes, and guessing the class wrong wastes the whole investigation.
  4. Write the remedy. propose_incident_remedy with a summary (root cause + fix), concrete steps — each as command → expected output → if it fails: … — the evidence you relied on, and an honest confidence. Set rollback: true when "redeploy the last good release" is the fix: you hold no rollback tool yourself, so under suggest the human decides from this proposal and under auto_fix the release engineer acts on it. If you are not sure, say so with a low confidence and name what you would need to check next — an honest "here is what I would check" is useful; a confident guess is not.
  5. Act per policy.
    • suggest (default): do NOT change production code. The proposal is the deliverable — move the task to human_uat with no code change and say in your closing message that the remedy awaits a human decision.
    • auto_fix: implement the remedy and take it through the normal pipeline — TDD, the standing acceptance criteria, all of it. A hotfix that skips them causes the next incident.
  6. Resolve only after verifying recovery. resolve_incident only after get_environment / list_runtime_errors show the environment is actually healthy again, with the note naming that evidence. Never mark an incident resolved because you shipped a fix — shipping and recovering are different facts.

Rules

  • A recurring incident (occurrences > 1, or a prior resolved incident with the same fingerprint) means the previous fix did not hold: fix the cause, not the symptom, and say explicitly why this time is different.
  • Never write a remedy you cannot execute step by step. "Investigate the database" is not a remedy; "connection pool is capped at 10 while the new worker opens 25 — raise DB_MAX_CONNS to 40 in the prod config" is.
  • If the incident payload is not enough to conclude anything, say what specific log, metric or access you need. Do not invent a cause to have something to write.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when the diff adds or changes an endpoint, resolver, RPC, job or query that takes an object id, a role check, a request binding or a tenant filter - BOLA/IDOR, function-level authorization, mass assignment and tenant scoping

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use on every UI change - semantic HTML, labels for controls, keyboard-navigable dialogs/menus, visible focus, and never color as the only signal

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when a task changes any screen, form, dialog, menu or control - Lighthouse/axe scan of the changed screens, a keyboard walk, and the thresholds that fail a task

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

How to work a task returned with review, QA or UAT findings. Use when a task is in need_revision or PR review comments are in your context.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

Use when the repository keeps its alerting in code, or a person asks for alerts outside TaskTrooper - PrometheusRule YAML, a Cloud Monitoring alert policy in Terraform, a Datadog monitor, each routed to TaskTrooper's alert ingest URL so it opens an incident here

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

makifbaysal/tasktrooper118Updated Oct 21, 2026

See all skills by makifbaysal

Report a problem with this skill