用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/wojons/skills --skill incident-response命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Use when you need comprehensive accessibility auditing including WCAG compliance, legal requirements mapping, and user testing with disabilities
Apply systematic adversarial thinking patterns including devil's advocate, assumption busting, red teaming, and white hat security approaches
A 10-step methodology for building software with AI collaboration - from north star through automated Ralph loop execution with zero human-in-the-loop code writing
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | incident-response |
| description | Use when you need to manage incidents and conduct post-mortem analysis to improve system reliability and security |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | opencode |
| metadata | {"audience":"devops, security-engineers, incident-managers","category":"operations"} |
Manage incidents effectively and conduct comprehensive post-mortem analysis to improve system reliability, security, and operational excellence. This skill covers incident management processes, communication protocols, technical investigation, and blameless post-mortems.
Use this skill when:
# Start incident response process
./scripts/analyze-incident-response.sh --severity sev1 --type availability --start
# Conduct post-mortem analysis
./scripts/analyze-incident-response.sh --post-mortem --incident-id INC-2025-001 --output post-mortem.md
# Generate incident report
./scripts/analyze-incident-response.sh --report --incident-id INC-2025-001 --format pdf
# Analyze incident metrics
./scripts/analyze-incident-response.sh --metrics --period monthly --output metrics.json
# Develop incident playbook
./scripts/analyze-incident-response.sh --playbook --type security --output security-playbook.md
Incident Response Analysis
─────────────────────────────────────
Incident ID: INC-2025-001
Severity: SEV-1 (Critical)
Type: Availability Incident
Start Time: 2025-01-15T02:30:00Z
Resolution Time: 2025-01-15T04:45:00Z
Duration: 2 hours 15 minutes
INCIDENT SUMMARY:
──────────────────
Title: Database cluster failover failure causing 100% API error rate
Impact: Complete service outage for all customers
Affected Systems: Primary database cluster, API services, customer applications
Root Cause: Automated failover script bug combined with network partition
Resolution: Manual failover to standby cluster, script fix, validation
SEVERITY CLASSIFICATION:
────────────────────────
Severity: SEV-1 (Critical)
Criteria:
• Customer Impact: 100% of customers affected
• Revenue Impact: Estimated $85,000/hour
• Service Level: SLA violation (99.95% target, actual 99.12%)
• Duration: 2 hours 15 minutes (> 5 minute target for SEV-1)
TIMELINE RECONSTRUCTION:
────────────────────────
02:30:00 - Monitoring alerts detect 100% API error rate
02:32:15 - Incident declared SEV-1, incident commander assigned
02:35:00 - Technical team begins investigation
02:45:00 - Identified database primary node failure
02:50:00 - Automated failover script fails due to bug
03:00:00 - Manual investigation reveals network partition
03:15:00 - Decision to perform manual failover to standby cluster
03:30:00 - Manual failover initiated
03:45:00 - Standby cluster promoted to primary
04:00:00 - Application connections redirected
04:15:00 - Service begins recovery
04:30:00 - 50% traffic restored
04:45:00 - 100% traffic restored, incident resolved
TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION:
─────────────────────────
Primary Cause: Automated failover script bug (line 245: incorrect condition check)
Contributing Factors:
1. Network partition between database nodes
2. Insufficient failover script testing
3. Lack of circuit breaker pattern in application connections
4. Monitoring gaps in failover process
5. Single point of failure in network configuration
Root Cause Analysis (5 Whys):
1. Why did service outage occur? Database primary node failed
2. Why did automatic failover not work? Failover script had bug
3. Why did bug exist in script? Insufficient testing of edge cases
4. Why insufficient testing? Test suite didn't include network partition scenarios
5. Why no network partition tests? Not considered in risk assessment
IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
───────────────────
Customer Impact:
• 100% of customers unable to access service
• 15,842 failed transactions
• 8,750 customer support tickets generated
Business Impact:
• Revenue loss: $191,250 (estimated)
• SLA credits: $42,500 (estimated)
• Reputation damage: Significant social media complaints
Technical Impact:
• 2 hours 15 minutes of complete outage
• 45 minutes of partial degradation
• Database corruption risk (mitigated by backups)
COMMUNICATION LOG:
───────────────────
02:35:00 - Internal alert: #incidents channel created
02:40:00 - Stakeholder notification: Executive team notified
02:45:00 - Status page update: Investigating increased error rates
03:00:00 - Customer notification: Email sent to enterprise customers
03:30:00 - Status page update: Identified issue, working on fix
04:00:00 - Status page update: Implementing fix, estimated recovery 60 minutes
04:30:00 - Status page update: Service recovering
04:50:00 - Status page update: Service restored, monitoring
05:00:00 - Post-mortem scheduled notification
REMEDIATION ACTIONS:
─────────────────────
Immediate (During Incident):
1. Manual failover to standby cluster (completed)
2. Application connection pool reset (completed)
3. Traffic redistribution (completed)
Short-term (24 hours):
1. Fix failover script bug (completed)
2. Enhance monitoring for failover events (in progress)
3. Update runbook with manual failover steps (in progress)
4. Review network configuration (scheduled)
Long-term (30 days):
1. Implement circuit breaker pattern in all services
2. Add network partition testing to test suite
3. Conduct failover drills quarterly
4. Implement chaos engineering for resilience testing
5. Review and update all automated failover scripts
POST-MORTEM ANALYSIS:
──────────────────────
What Went Well:
• Quick incident declaration and response
• Effective communication throughout incident
• Backup systems worked as designed
• Team coordination across time zones
• Documentation available and useful
What Could Be Improved:
• Automated failover reliability
• Testing coverage for edge cases
• Monitoring visibility into failover process
• Incident playbook completeness
• Stakeholder communication templates
Lessons Learned:
1. Automated systems require regular testing of failure scenarios
2. Network partitions must be considered in high-availability designs
3. Circuit breaker patterns are essential for resilient microservices
4. Regular failover drills build muscle memory for real incidents
5. Blameless culture enables honest post-mortem analysis
ACTION ITEMS:
─────────────
1. HIGH PRIORITY: Fix failover script bug and deploy to all environments
Owner: Database Engineering
Due: 2025-01-16
Status: In Progress
2. HIGH PRIORITY: Implement circuit breaker pattern in API services
Owner: Platform Engineering
Due: 2025-01-30
Status: Not Started
3. MEDIUM PRIORITY: Add network partition testing to test suite
Owner: Quality Engineering
Due: 2025-02-15
Status: Not Started
4. MEDIUM PRIORITY: Update incident playbook with manual failover steps
Owner: DevOps
Due: 2025-01-20
Status: In Progress
5. LOW PRIORITY: Conduct quarterly failover drills
Owner: SRE
Due: 2025-04-01 (recurring)
Status: Scheduled
INCIDENT METRICS:
─────────────────
Mean Time To Detection (MTTD): 2 minutes 15 seconds
Mean Time To Acknowledgment (MTTA): 5 minutes
Mean Time To Resolution (MTTR): 2 hours 15 minutes
Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF): 45 days
Incident Count (30 days): 3
Severity Distribution: SEV-1: 1, SEV-2: 2, SEV-3: 0
PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS:
─────────────────────
1. Update incident severity classification guidelines
2. Implement automated incident timeline generation
3. Create stakeholder communication templates
4. Establish incident commander rotation
5. Implement incident metrics dashboard
RECOMMENDATIONS:
────────────────
1. Implement automated failover testing in CI/CD pipeline
2. Conduct chaos engineering exercises quarterly
3. Establish incident response training for all engineers
4. Implement service-level objectives (SLOs) and error budgets
5. Create incident severity playbooks for common scenarios
INCIDENT RESPONSE MATURITY ASSESSMENT:
───────────────────────────────────────
Current Level: 3/5 (Defined)
• Process: Defined incident response process
• People: Trained incident responders
• Technology: Basic incident management tools
• Culture: Blameless post-mortems established
• Metrics: Basic incident metrics tracked
Target Level: 4/5 (Managed)
• Process: Integrated incident response with DevOps
• People: Cross-functional incident response teams
• Technology: Advanced incident management platform
• Culture: Continuous learning from incidents
• Metrics: Comprehensive metrics with trend analysis