Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

incident-documenting事件记录

Agent Skill

incident-documenting 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

321

周安装

13

GitHub Stars

5

下载量

101
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:incident-documenting(事件记录)
来源仓库:https://github.com/wizeline/sdlc-agents
仓库路径:skills/incident-documenting
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/wizeline/sdlc-agents --skill incident-documenting
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/wizeline/sdlc-agents --skill incident-documenting

简介

incident-documenting 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于事件记录与文档整理相关的信息检索场景。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 GitHub 仓库安装,需结合原始 README 确认具体用法。
  • 安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态及是否触发联网或文件操作。
  • 当前无详细功能描述,建议查阅来源仓库获取完整使用说明。

SKILL.md

Incident Artifacts Skill

Your job is to produce the written artifacts that turn an incident from a chaotic event into a documented, trackable, learnable organizational record. These artifacts serve three audiences: the team resolving the incident right now (escalation brief), the engineering org tracking it (Jira ticket), and the broader organization learning from it (postmortem).

Every artifact produced by this skill is saved to disk — nothing stays only in chat.


Artifact 1: Escalation Brief

When to produce: Any time a P0 or P1 incident needs to be handed to another team, a manager needs to be informed, or the on-call engineer needs to page someone. Generate this *before* root cause is confirmed if severity warrants it.

Save to: .docs/escalation-<YYYYMMDD-HHMM>.md

ESCALATION BRIEF
─────────────────
Incident    : [Short title — specific enough to distinguish from other incidents]
Severity    : P[N] / SEV[N]
Time        : [HH:MM UTC — when incident started]
Duration    : [How long this has been active]

What's broken:
  [One paragraph: observable symptom, affected users/services, business impact]

What's been tried:
  [Bullet list of actions taken and their outcomes — be specific, not "we looked at things"]
  - Checked DB connection pool → utilization at 98%, not the cause
  - Rolled back deploy v2.4.1 → no change in error rate
  - Restarted UserService pods → temporary relief, error rate returned after ~10min

Current hypothesis:
  [Best current theory about root cause — or "unknown" if no hypothesis yet]

What we need:
  [Specific ask from the escalation target — not "help", but "we need X to do Y"]
  - DBA access to run `pg_locks` queries on prod DB
  - AWS support to check for RDS-level connection limits

Escalate to: [on-call lead | platform team | security | DBA | vendor support]
Contact via: [PagerDuty policy name | Slack channel | phone]

Artifact 2: Jira Ticket

When to produce: After any incident (P0–P3) once the symptom is understood well enough to describe it clearly. For P0/P1, create during or immediately after resolution. For P2/P3, create when triaged.

Save to: .docs/jira-<YYYYMMDD-HHMM>.md

**Issue Type:** Bug / Incident
**Priority:** Blocker / Critical / Major / Minor
**Title:** [Specific and searchable — avoid "prod is down"
           Good: "UserService connection pool leak causes checkout 503s after ~2h uptime"
           Bad: "Production incident 2024-01-15"]
**Components:** [Service name(s)]
**Labels:** incident, severity-p<N>[, postmortem-needed][, security][, data-integrity]
**Fix Version:** [hotfix tag or next release]
**Linked PRs:** [if known]

---

## Summary
[2–3 sentences: what broke, when, who was affected, business impact.
No jargon that a PM couldn't parse.]

## Root Cause
[The full causal chain — be specific. Name the commit, function, query, or dependency.
"A bug in authentication" is not a root cause. "Connection leak in UserService.fetchProfile()
introduced in commit a3f92b1 (deploy v2.4.1) caused pool exhaustion after ~2 hours of uptime"
is a root cause.]

## Timeline
| Time (UTC) | Event |
|---|---|
| HH:MM | Incident started (first error / alert fired) |
| HH:MM | On-call engineer paged / developer noticed |
| HH:MM | [Key diagnostic step] |
| HH:MM | Root cause identified |
| HH:MM | Fix deployed / rollback executed |
| HH:MM | Error rate returned to baseline |
| HH:MM | Incident resolved |

## Resolution
[What was done to restore service — the actual commands or changes, not just "we fixed it".]

## Follow-up Actions
- [ ] Add regression test: [specific scenario that was missing coverage]
- [ ] Add monitoring alert: [specific signal that would have caught this earlier]
- [ ] Audit [related code/service] for the same class of issue
- [ ] Update runbook: [path to runbook]
- [ ] Schedule postmortem (required for P0/P1)

## Prevention
[What architectural or process change prevents this class of incident from recurring.
Be specific — "add more tests" is not prevention. "Add connection pool utilization alert
at 80% threshold with PagerDuty integration" is prevention.]

Artifact 3: Postmortem Draft

When to produce: After any P0 or P1 incident, or any incident where significant user or revenue impact occurred. Generate the draft immediately after resolution — details fade fast.

Save to: docs/postmortem-<YYYYMMDD>-<slug>.md

The goal of a postmortem is blameless learning — understanding the systemic conditions that allowed the incident to occur, not assigning fault to individuals.

# Postmortem: <Incident Title>

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Severity:** P[N]
**Duration:** [N hours N minutes — from first alert to resolution]
**Author(s):** [Names]
**Status:** Draft / In Review / Final
**Reviewed by:** [Names — fill in after review meeting]

---

## Impact
[Quantified user and business impact:
- N users affected for N hours
- Revenue impact: estimated $N (or "unknown, under investigation")
- SLA: [met / breached by N minutes]
- Error budget: consumed N% of monthly budget]

## Timeline
[Same timeline as Jira ticket — copy/expand with more detail here]

## Root Cause
[Full causal chain — more detailed than the Jira version. Explain the technical mechanism
in enough depth that an engineer unfamiliar with the system understands it.]

## Contributing Factors
[Systemic conditions that allowed this to happen — these are the things to fix:
- No alert existed for connection pool utilization above 80%
- The deployment checklist didn't include DB migration review
- Source map files weren't deployed alongside minified JS, slowing stack trace resolution
These are not excuses — they're the actual targets for prevention work.]

## What Went Well
[Actions that limited the impact or accelerated resolution:
- On-call engineer was paged within 2 minutes of the alert firing
- Feature flag was in place, enabling partial mitigation without a rollback
- Runbook existed for this failure class and was accurate]

## What Went Poorly
[Honest assessment — blameless, but specific:
- 45 minutes elapsed before root cause was identified because DB metrics weren't in the runbook
- Rollback procedure required manual steps not documented anywhere
- Escalation path was unclear — three engineers each thought another was the primary owner]

## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add connection pool alert at 80% | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | P1 |
| Update deployment checklist | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | P2 |
| Add regression test for fetchProfile | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | P2 |
| Update runbook with DB metric steps | [Name] | YYYY-MM-DD | P2 |

## Lessons Learned
[2–3 transferable insights for the broader engineering org — things other teams might apply.]

Artifact 4: Incident Summary (async communication)

When to produce: When the developer needs to communicate incident status to stakeholders asynchronously — Slack, email, status page.

Save to: .docs/summary-<YYYYMMDD-HHMM>.md

**[RESOLVED] <Service Name> <Symptom> — <Date>**

**Status:** Resolved at HH:MM UTC
**Duration:** N hours N minutes
**Impact:** [Users/services affected, what was broken]

**What happened:**
[2–3 sentences: root cause in plain language]

**What we did:**
[Brief list of resolution steps]

**Current state:**
[All systems normal / monitoring for recurrence / follow-up work in progress]

**Next steps:**
- Jira ticket: [link]
- Postmortem scheduled: [date]

Output Discipline

  • Save every artifact to disk immediately — use file write tools
  • Check for existing docs/, runbooks/ directories before creating new ones
  • Fill every field, even with "unknown" — blank fields in incident documentation are worse than approximate information
  • Timelines must be in UTC with explicit timezone — "around 3pm" is not acceptable in incident docs
  • Postmortem action items must have an owner and a due date — unowned action items don't get done

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

37.94%
按下载量换算38

Claude

31.45%
按下载量换算32

Cursor

18.01%
按下载量换算18

Gemini CLI

9.96%
按下载量换算10

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills