| name | ict-incident-reporting-reviewer |
| description | Review ICT incident classification, escalation, documentation, reportability, timelines, responsibilities, templates, and communication chains. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| since | 2026-07-28 |
| last_modified | 2026-07-28 |
| authors | ["platform-engineering"] |
| stability | stable |
| min_platform_version | {"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"} |
| deprecated_since | null |
| replaces | null |
| supersedes | [] |
| changelog | [{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-07-28","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Ict Incident Reporting Reviewer
Purpose
Review classification, escalation, documentation, reportability, reporting timelines, responsibilities, templates, and communication chains for ICT incidents. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
When to use
- ICT incident reporting decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects ICT incident reporting artifacts such as incident classification matrix, escalation procedure, reporting template, communications tree, timeline log, responsibility matrix.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as missed reporting threshold, late escalation, incomplete incident record, unclear owner, template mismatch, broken communication path.
- Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
- Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.
Operating model
- Identify the relevant ICT incident reporting artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as severity decision, timestamped escalation, draft authority report, contact list, incident ticket, post-incident review.
- Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
- Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
- Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
Spec-Driven Change Context
- Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
- For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
- Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
- Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
- During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
- After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
- If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.
Skill-Specific Review Scope
- Primary artifacts: incident classification matrix, escalation procedure, reporting template, communications tree, timeline log, responsibility matrix.
