本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

incident-response

Run a structured incident response. Use when the user says "we have an incident", "production is down", "service is degraded", "on-call response", "p0 incident", "something is broken in prod", "help me manage this incident", "incident commander", or there is an active production issue requiring coordinated response - even if they don't explicitly say "incident response".

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.9 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。

Overview

Based on the Google SRE Book by Beyer, Jones, Petoff & Murphy. Google's incident management framework establishes clear roles, communication protocols, and decision hierarchies that let teams respond to complex outages without chaos. The core principle: when systems fail, the response should be calmer and more structured than the incident itself.

Three SRE roles during an incident:

  • Incident Commander (IC) - owns the response, makes decisions, delegates
  • Operations Lead - makes changes to the system (the IC does not touch production)
  • Communications Lead - handles stakeholder updates, keeps IC focused on the incident

Workflow

Step 1: Declare the incident

If in doubt, declare. It's always easier to stand down an incident than to escalate a non-incident that becomes one.

Set severity:

SeverityCriteriaResponse time
SEV1 / P0Total outage, revenue impact, data lossImmediate - all hands
SEV2 / P1Significant degradation, major feature down< 15 min response
SEV3 / P2Minor degradation, workaround available< 1 hour response

Step 2: Assign the IC

One person owns the incident. The IC:

  • Does NOT make changes to production themselves
  • Delegates all technical actions to the Operations Lead
  • Asks for status updates, not details ("what's the impact?" not "show me the logs")
  • Makes the call to escalate, rollback, or stand down

Step 3: Open the incident channel

Create a dedicated Slack channel or incident doc immediately. Post within 2 minutes:

INCIDENT: [service] [severity]
IC: [name]
Operations: [name]
Status: Investigating
Symptoms: [what users are experiencing]
Started: [approximate time]

Step 4: Investigate - form hypotheses

Operations Lead: form a hypothesis before running commands.

  • What changed recently? (deploys, config changes, dependency updates)
  • What do metrics show? (error rate, latency, saturation)
  • What do logs show?

SRE principle: change is the enemy of stability. Look at what changed first.

Step 5: Communicate on a schedule

Communications Lead posts status updates every 15 minutes (SEV1) or 30 minutes (SEV2) even if nothing has changed. "We are still investigating" is a valid update. Silence breeds panic.

Internal update format:

[TIME] Status: [Investigating / Mitigating / Monitoring / Resolved]
Impact: [what users are experiencing]
Current action: [what the team is doing right now]
Next update: [time]

Step 6: Mitigate before you fix

Mitigation = stop the bleeding. Fix = address the root cause.

Mitigation actions (in order of preference):

  1. Rollback the most recent deploy
  2. Disable the affected feature flag
  3. Redirect traffic to a healthy region
  4. Scale up capacity
  5. Apply a hotfix (last resort - introduces new risk)

Apply the fastest, lowest-risk mitigation first.

Step 7: Declare resolution

When user impact is resolved (not when root cause is found):

RESOLVED: [service] is restored
Duration: [start] to [end]
Impact: [who was affected, what was degraded]
Resolution: [what action resolved it]
Root cause: [preliminary - full postmortem to follow]
Next step: Postmortem within [48h for SEV1, 1 week for SEV2]

Anti-Patterns

1. IC also making production changes Bad: The incident commander is also running kubectl commands and checking logs. Good: IC delegates all technical actions. Two roles, two people. IC stays at the strategic level.

2. No regular status updates Bad: Stakeholders hear nothing for 45 minutes. Good: Communications Lead posts every 15 minutes (SEV1). Even "still investigating" counts.

3. Fixing root cause under pressure instead of mitigating Bad: "We know the bug, let me push a fix to prod." Good: Rollback first, restore service, then fix properly in a controlled environment.

4. Declaring the incident over when root cause is unknown Bad: Service is restored, incident closed, no postmortem scheduled. Good: Resolution = user impact resolved. Root cause investigation continues. Postmortem is mandatory for SEV1/SEV2.

Quality Checklist

  • Severity declared with criteria
  • Incident Commander assigned (not the same person as Operations Lead)
  • Incident channel opened with initial status post
  • Status updates posted on schedule (every 15-30 min)
  • Mitigation prioritized over fix under pressure
  • Resolution post includes: duration, impact, resolution action, postmortem date
  • Postmortem scheduled before incident is fully closed

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

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。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

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。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

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。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

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。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

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。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Design clean and consistent APIs. Use when the user says "design an API", "API design review", "design these endpoints", "REST API for X", "GraphQL schema", "API contract", "how should this endpoint work", "review my API design", or wants to create or improve an API interface - even if they don't explicitly say "API design".

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。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

qa-aman のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する