Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Write clear customer-facing outage and service-disruption notifications. Use when asked to write an outage notice, a status-page update, a service-disruption email, a maintenance notice, or an incident update sequence. Produces status-page updates for each phase (investigating → identified → monitoring → resolved), a customer email, and a resolved/post-incident summary, in plain, reassuring language.
.claude/skills/mohitagw15856-customer-outage-notice/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 19% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 16% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 18% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 36% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -22% | 0% |
During an outage, customers don't need engineering detail — they need to know you're aware, that you're on it, and when you'll update them next. This skill writes the notifications across the whole incident lifecycle, in calm, plain language that reduces support tickets instead of generating them. (For a security/data incident or a PR crisis, use incident-public-statement or pr-crisis-response.)
Given "checkout is down for some users", produce the full set of phased notices anyway — infer the affected scope and a plausible update cadence, label assumptions, and bracket the specific facts (start time, services, ETA) to fill in. Never wait for full detail; teams paste these live and edit the brackets.
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided (else infer and label):
1. Status-page updates — a short post for each phase, each timestamped and committing to a next-update time:
| Phase | Message (template) | |---|---| | Investigating | "We're investigating reports of issue] affecting scope]. Next update by time]." | | Identified | "We've identified the cause of issue] and are working on a fix. Scope] remains affected. Next update by time]." | | Monitoring | "A fix has been deployed and we're monitoring recovery. You may see residual effect]. Next update by time]." | | Resolved | "This incident is resolved as of time]. Service] is operating normally. Thank you for your patience." |
2. Customer email — a slightly fuller version for direct notification: what's affected, what they can/can't do right now, any workaround, and where to follow live status.
3. In-app / banner line — one sentence for a status banner.
4. Resolved summary — a short post-incident note: what happened (plain language), the impact window, what you've done to prevent recurrence, and how to reach support if they're still affected. Keep it blameless and non-technical; link a full post-mortem if one exists.
Incident-communication practice — phased status updates (investigating/identified/monitoring/resolved), committed update cadence, and blameless plain-language summaries.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 13,474 | 11,781 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,254 | 2,688 | +19% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 15,378 | 11,943 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,520 | 2,921 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 14,954 | 13,414 | -10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,512 | 2,965 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 13,374 | 21,607 | +62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,118 | 2,886 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 11,266 | 12,110 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,715 | 2,714 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 37,784 | 25,763 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,192 | 4,851 | -22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 13,519 | 10,226 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,187 | 2,651 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 7,571 | 12,365 | +63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,206 | 2,794 | +132% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 7,094 | 6,238 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,047 | 1,946 | +86% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 4,559 | 6,433 | +41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 826 | 1,846 | +123% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 5,773 | 9,369 | +62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,028 | 2,693 | +162% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 6,578 | 10,015 | +52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,084 | 2,779 | +156% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 8,672 | 10,830 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,406 | 2,754 | +96% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 8,465 | 45,910 | +442% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,535 | 2,456 | +60% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | 6,446 | 8,392 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,170 | 2,387 | +104% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 11,054 | 12,472 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,953 | 2,765 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 6,742 | 9,451 | +40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,245 | 2,651 | +113% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 13,015 | 12,222 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,306 | 2,827 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 12,396 | 10,963 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,148 | 2,981 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 8,632 | 10,295 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,291 | 2,897 | +124% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 8,757 | 10,004 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,367 | 2,744 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→pass | 9,943 | 11,249 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,675 | 2,907 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +32 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
| Model | Method | Date | Lift |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | verified | 8/14/2026 | +32% |
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.