Name: incident-runbook-templates
Rating: 59.2 (1 reviews)
Author: administrakt0r

incident-runbook-templates

Production-ready templates for incident response runbooks covering detection, triage, mitigation, resolution, and communication.

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/incident-runbook-templates/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is incident-runbook-templates in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

Quality

Content

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is highly actionable, with executable commands and clear sequenced workflows for the major incident scenarios, but it is weighed down by generic boilerplate and weak progressive disclosure: it points to non-existent files and inlines two large templates that belong in separate references. Tightening the filler and supplying the referenced bundle files would lift the weaker dimensions.

Suggestions

Create the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` and the cited `./scripts/smoke-test-payments.sh` and `./scripts/db-rollback.sh` files, or remove the dangling references, so progressive disclosure points to real material.

Move the two full runbook templates into separate reference files (e.g. `references/service-outage-runbook.md`, `references/database-incident-runbook.md`) and keep concise overviews plus pointers in SKILL.md.

Add explicit validation feedback loops for the destructive steps (e.g. after `kubectl rollout undo` or `pg_terminate_backend`, state "Re-run verification; if still failing, escalate per the matrix") to raise workflow clarity.

Trim the generic Instructions and "Do not use this skill when" boilerplate to reduce padding.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly concrete, executable commands, but it carries generic boilerplate ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices", and the "Do not use this skill when" filler) and inlines two full templates that could be tightened, matching the mostly-efficient-with-some-unneeded-material anchor 3.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides copy-paste-ready kubectl, psql, and curl commands across the common cases (service down, high latency, partial failures, traffic surge, DB pool exhaustion, replication lag, disk space) with specific thresholds and decision tables, matching the fully-executable anchor 5.	5 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Sequences are clearly numbered (Step 1–6) with a dedicated "Verification Steps" section, rollback escape hatches, and a triage decision table, but the destructive operations (rollout undo, pg_terminate_backend, VACUUM FULL, NetworkPolicy IP blocking) lack explicit "if verification fails, fix and retry" feedback loops, fitting anchor 4 rather than 5.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	There is clear section structure (Core Concepts, Templates, Best Practices, Resources) and an attempted pointer ("open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`"), but that referenced file and the cited `./scripts/*.sh` scripts do not exist, and two full runbook templates are inlined rather than split into separate reference files, matching the some-structure-but-inlined/broken-references anchor 3.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

66%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific and distinct, naming the incident-response domain and its five lifecycle phases, but it omits any explicit "Use when..." trigger guidance, which caps completeness. Adding a concrete trigger clause would raise the score meaningfully.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. "Use when creating or updating incident response runbooks, on-call procedures, or service-specific recovery playbooks."

Add natural synonyms users say under stress, such as "on-call", "postmortem", "SEV1/severity", and "escalation", to improve trigger-term coverage.

Reframe the phases as concrete actions (e.g. "Detect, triage, mitigate, resolve, and communicate during incidents") to push specificity toward the comprehensive anchor.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	"Production-ready templates for incident response runbooks covering detection, triage, mitigation, resolution, and communication" names the domain and lists several specific covered phases, but the sole action is providing templates while the phases are topics rather than distinct concrete actions, leaving minor gaps versus the comprehensive anchor 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	The description clearly answers "what" (production-ready incident runbook templates covering the five phases) but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric cap it cannot exceed 3.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "incident response runbooks", "triage", and "mitigation" are natural terms users would say, but common synonyms such as "on-call", "postmortem", "SEV1/severity", and "escalation" are missing, matching the good-coverage-with-gaps anchor 4.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	"Incident response runbooks" is a recognizable niche with distinct triggers, but the generic framing ("production-ready templates") leaves minor overlap risk with broader SRE/incident-management skills, fitting the mostly-distinct anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Path: plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/incident-runbook-templates/SKILL.md
Commit: 57c135b

Reviewed: 4 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.