本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

incident-severity-triage

Use this skill when something is happening now: an alert, a suspicious login, a ransomware note, data sent to the wrong customer, an outage that might be an attack, and someone asks "how bad is this", "classify this incident", "is this a SEV1", "who do we wake up", "is this a breach", "do we need to notify anyone" or "start the incident log". Classifies the incident on the company's own scale in minutes, decides who is called and how fast, flags any regulatory or contractual clock, lists the evidence to preserve, and starts a timestamped triage record that is revisited as facts change.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md7.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Use this in the first hour of a suspected incident, and again each time a new fact arrives. You get one file in a new folder, ./incident-severity-triage/: a running incident log, one per incident, that opens with when the company found out, the proposed severity with its reason, who to call and which reporting deadlines may apply, then adds each new fact and decision with its time (<incident-id>-triage.md). This skill drafts for a human to review and sign; this skill never marks a control effective. The incident lead decides the severity; the agent proposes it fast, with reasons.

Inputs to gather

Speed matters more than completeness here. Read the incident response plan and its severity scale if one exists, and the alert, ticket or message that started this. Ask the reader, in one message, only what decides severity: what was seen and when, which systems and data, whether customers or production are affected, whether it is still happening, and whether personal data may be involved. Accept "unknown" and move on.

Step 1: record the clock first

Write the time of first detection and the time the company became aware that an incident probably occurred, in UTC, with who noticed and how. Several notification deadlines run from awareness, not from the end of the investigation. Awareness starts when someone in the company has a reasonable degree of certainty that an incident occurred, which can be the on-call engineer, not the security team's later confirmation. If the reader is unsure, record both candidate times and the reason; the reporting step decides which applies.

Step 2: classify on business impact

Use the company's scale. If there is none, use this one and mark it provisional in the record:

  • SEV1: confirmed theft or exposure of customer or personal data at scale, ransomware or destructive activity, an attacker active with administrator access, or the core service down for most customers.
  • SEV2: confirmed compromise contained to limited scope, exposure of one customer's data, a stolen credential with access to sensitive systems, or a partial outage of a core service.
  • SEV3: suspicious activity not yet confirmed, malware blocked on one device, a phishing click without credential entry, a minor outage with a workaround.
  • SEV4: an event with no impact, tracked for trends.

Classify by impact on customers, data and operations, never by how loud the alert is or how hard the technical problem looks. When torn between two levels, pick the higher one and record the reason; downgrading later costs little, a missed deadline or an absent decision maker costs a lot.

Step 3: decide who is called

Propose the call list from the plan's contact tree, by role:

  • SEV1: incident lead, technical lead, an executive who can authorise spending and shutting down systems, legal and privacy, communications, within about 15 minutes, day or night.
  • SEV2: incident lead, the system owner, privacy if personal data may be involved, within the hour.
  • SEV3: the on-call engineer in working hours; incident lead informed.
  • SEV4: ticket only.

If the normal channels may be compromised (mailbox takeover, chat account takeover), say so and propose the out-of-band channel from the plan.

Step 4: flag clocks and preserve evidence

Separate from severity, add a line per regime and contract, each marked yes, no or unknown, with the fact that decides it: personal data affected, and whose (for the company's own data GDPR Art. 33 runs from its awareness; as a processor for a customer's data, the duty is to tell that customer without undue delay, Art. 33(2)), a significant incident for an entity in NIS 2 scope (Art. 23, where the early warning is due within 24 hours of awareness, so a yes or unknown cannot wait for the investigation), a major ICT-related incident for a financial entity under DORA (Art. 18 and 19), customer contract notification clauses, and the cyber insurance policy's notice condition. Anything other than "no" goes to the reporting clock step at once.

List the evidence to keep before anyone fixes anything: snapshots or images of affected machines before rebuild, logs that will roll over (check retention, some keep only days), mailbox audit records, cloud audit trails, the original phishing message with headers. Containment that destroys evidence is a decision for the incident lead, recorded with the reason.

Step 5: keep the record running

Append each new fact, decision and who made it, with a UTC time. Re-triage at least every few hours during a SEV1 or SEV2, and whenever scope changes. Record each downgrade with its reason. Write the record for its later readers too: for a personal data breach it feeds the breach documentation a controller keeps (GDPR Art. 33(5)) and the post-incident review. If the provisional scale was used, close the record with a note for the plan owner to create or reconcile the company's severity scale.

What good looks like

  • The record opens with the awareness time, the severity with its one-line reason, and the clock flags. A reader joining late understands the state in one minute.
  • A strong practitioner asks "is personal data involved" and "is the attacker still in" before anything else; those two answers change the call list and the clocks.
  • The common mistake is triaging by technical interest: a clever exploit on a test server becomes SEV1 while a spreadsheet of customer data emailed to the wrong person sits at SEV3.
  • The tell that it went wrong: no awareness timestamp, no regulatory line, logs already overwritten, and a severity never revisited after the first hour.

Framework lookups

If ISMS Copilot is connected to your agent (MCP server https://account.ismscopilot.com/v1/account/mcp), ask it the framework question with create_conversation (mode think, answer_format: decision) and keep one conversation for this task. Send only a short question in your own words, show it to the user first, and never include file contents, secrets, personal data or evidence. If it is not connected, check the official text of the framework yourself; this skill does not restate it. Set it up: https://www.ismscopilot.com/mcp?ref=grcskills-incident-severity-triage

Rules

  • MUST record detection and awareness times in UTC before anything else.
  • MUST give a one-line reason for every severity and every downgrade.
  • MUST write outputs only inside ./incident-severity-triage/ and ask before overwriting.
  • NEVER contain, delete, rebuild, block or shut down anything; propose it to the incident lead.
  • NEVER page, message or notify anyone, inside or outside the company, on the reader's behalf.
  • NEVER copy credentials, personal data or customer records into the triage record; describe them by type and count.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

コメント

ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。

まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。

送信するとすぐに公開されます。メールアドレスや電話番号などの個人情報は書かないでください。URL は 2 つまでです。

0 / 1000 文字

このフォームは reCAPTCHA で保護されており、Google のプライバシーポリシーと利用規約が適用されます。

同じリポジトリのスキル

Use this skill when a company needs rules for how staff use company systems, data, devices and AI tools, or asks "write our acceptable use policy", "AUP for employees", "can staff use ChatGPT at work", "AI usage policy", "BYOD rules", "remote work security rules" or "a policy people will actually read". Finds how people really work (devices, apps, AI tools, travel), puts the choices to the reader as decisions, drafts a short plain-language policy with concrete do and do not examples, and adds a comprehension check and an acknowledgement text for onboarding.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a periodic user access review is due, an auditor asked for access review evidence, or someone says "prepare the access review", "run the quarterly user recertification", "who still has admin", "check leavers still have access", "build the access review sheets for managers" or "our last review was a rubber stamp". Picks the systems in scope, builds account populations reconciled against HR, pre-flags leavers, orphans, shared and dormant accounts, assigns independent reviewers, defines the decisions to record, and plans the removal follow-up.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when staff already use AI assistants, coding tools or AI features and the company needs rules people will follow, and asks "write our AI usage policy", "can staff use ChatGPT", "generative AI policy", "what data can we put into AI tools", "approved AI tools list", "rules for AI agents and connectors" or "AI literacy for staff". Finds out what people actually use, sets a short list of approved tools with a data traffic light, rules for checking outputs and for agents that act, a fast route to request a new tool, and writes a two-page rule set, the approved tools list and rollout notes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a company must work out where each of its AI systems sits under the EU AI Act, and asks "is this high-risk", "classify our AI systems", "AI Act risk tier", "are we a provider or a deployer", "does Annex III apply to us", "is this a prohibited practice", "what does the AI Act mean for our chatbot" or "which AI Act obligations do we have". Tests each system, one at a time, for scope, role, prohibited practices, the two high-risk routes, the narrow exemption, transparency duties and general-purpose models, and writes a reasoned classification record per system plus a summary table of resulting obligations to confirm with whoever owns legal interpretation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when one AI system needs its impact on people and on the company assessed before launch, after a significant change, or because a customer, auditor or regulator asks for it, and the team says "AI impact assessment", "assess the impact of this model", "fundamental rights impact assessment", "who could this AI harm", "bias assessment before launch" or "sign-off for the AI feature". Describes the system in its context, works through impacts on the people it affects with evidence, sizes them, proposes mitigations with measurable triggers, and writes one assessment ready for the system owner and an accountable executive to sign.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

Use this skill when a company that already runs a security management system wants to add an AI management system, or is preparing for an AI governance certification, and asks "scope our AI management system", "what should the AIMS cover", "AI governance roles", "who owns AI governance", "extend our ISMS to AI" or "write the AI management system scope statement". Decides which AI systems, roles, teams and lifecycle stages are in, maps interfaces and dependencies, reuses the processes the security system already runs, assigns roles with a RACI, and writes the scope statement, the roles file and the open questions for leadership.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

better-isms/grcskills102026年10月20日 更新

better-isms のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する