Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Design a support/incident escalation tree — who handles what, when it escalates, and to whom. Use when asked to design an escalation path, an escalation matrix, support tiers, an on-call escalation policy, or to fix 'tickets bounce around / nothing gets escalated in time'. Produces an escalation tree — tiers & ownership, severity definitions, time-based triggers, routing rules, contacts/roles, and the customer-communication cadence per level.
.claude/skills/mohitagw15856-escalation-tree/SKILL.md| Model | Eval pass | Runs |
|---|---|---|
| gemini-3.6-flash | 100% | 12 |
| gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 100% | 1 |
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 40% | 0% |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 43% | 0% |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 42% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 41% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 8% | 0% |
Escalation goes wrong two ways: things sit too long before someone senior is pulled in, or everything gets escalated and senior people drown. A clear escalation tree fixes both — it defines the tiers, the severity that sets the path, the time triggers that force escalation, and who owns each step. This skill designs that, so the right person is on the right issue at the right time.
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:
1. Severity levels — define each (SEV1/P1 … or Critical/High/Normal/Low) with concrete criteria — what qualifies, blast radius, and the response & resolution targets per level. Ambiguous severity is why escalation fails.
2. The tiers — who owns what:
| Tier | Owns | Can resolve | Escalates when | |---|---|---|---| | Tier 1 | first response, known issues | runbook items | unresolved in time] or sev ≥ x] | | Tier 2 | deeper diagnosis | most issues | needs code/infra change | | Eng on-call | code/infra | the system | — |
3. The tree (routing) — by severity, the path and the time triggers: > SEV1 → page eng on-call immediately + notify manager; if unacked in 5 min → secondary; if 15 min → eng lead. > Normal → tier-1; if unresolved in 1 business day → tier-2.
Show the branch logic clearly (who, after how long, to whom).
4. Contacts & roles — by role (not just names — names change): who fills each, primary/secondary, and how they're reached per severity (page vs. Slack vs. ticket).
5. Customer communication — the update cadence per severity (e.g. SEV1: status-page + update every 30 min; normal: reply within SLA). Who owns the customer comms vs. the fix.
6. After — for high-sev, the handoff to a postmortem (pair with incident-postmortem).
Support & incident-management practice — severity matrices, tiered ownership, time-based escalation, on-call routing.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | pass→pass | 19,271 | 21,038 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,155 | 4,125 | +31% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | pass→fail | 18,393 | 22,491 | +22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,386 | 4,784 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→fail | 20,079 | 17,611 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,671 | 3,964 | +8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 17,475 | 19,037 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,568 | 3,905 | +52% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 16,527 | 15,464 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,647 | 3,673 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 13,528 | 17,306 | +28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,084 | 3,648 | +75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 12,813 | 23,575 | +84% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,003 | 4,720 | +136% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→fail | 13,385 | 14,177 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,299 | 3,246 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 11,133 | 12,616 | +13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,937 | 2,709 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 20,044 | 19,849 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,246 | 4,003 | +23% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 17,988 | 18,898 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,716 | 3,879 | +43% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 14,077 | 12,450 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,125 | 2,851 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 8,117 | 12,216 | +50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,327 | 2,608 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 9,412 | 7,009 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,402 | 1,959 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 15,052 | 15,492 | +3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,408 | 3,344 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 16,339 | 19,311 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,459 | 3,899 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 15,997 | 21,423 | +34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,760 | 4,392 | +59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 13,177 | 14,549 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,286 | 3,253 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 37,796 | 16,554 | -56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,085 | 3,776 | -8% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 19,184 | 20,336 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,254 | 4,135 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 13,755 | 9,341 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,157 | 2,284 | +6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 16,182 | 18,425 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,358 | 3,156 | +34% | 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 +5 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
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.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.