Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Generate incident response playbooks for security incidents, outages, and disaster recovery with NIST SP 800-61 compliance and escalation paths.
.claude/skills/williamzujkowski-incident-response-playbook-generator/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 46% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 55% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 142% | 0% |
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 830% | 0% |
| case-15 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 169% | 0% |
Trigger conditions:
Not for:
Time normalization:
NOW_ET using NIST/time.gov semantics (America/New_York, ISO-8601): 2025-10-25T21:30:36-04:00NOW_ET for all citation access datesInput validation:
incident_type must be: security, outage, disaster-recovery, data-breach, ransomware, ddos, service-degradationseverity_level must be: P0, P1, P2, or P3service_context (if provided) must include: service_name, team_owner, dependenciescompliance_requirements must be valid framework identifierstier must be: T1 or T2Source freshness:
Dependency validation:
Fast path for 80% of standard playbook needs:
incident_type to NIST SP 800-61 categoryseverity_level inputToken budget: T1 ≤2k tokens (template only, no deep context)
Extended path for service-specific, compliance-driven playbooks:
service_context to identify critical dependenciesToken budget: T2 ≤6k tokens (includes service context, compliance, and communication plans)
Incident type routing:
security | data-breach | ransomware → Include forensic preservation steps, consider invoking security-assessment-frameworkoutage | service-degradation → Focus on MTTR reduction, rollback procedures, health checksdisaster-recovery → Invoke DR site failover procedures, RTO/RPO validationddos → Include traffic analysis, rate limiting, upstream provider coordinationSeverity thresholds (auto-escalation triggers):
Compliance-driven requirements:
Abort conditions:
incident_type is unknown/invalid → Request clarificationservice_context missing for T2 → Downgrade to T1 or request architecture detailsRequired fields (all tiers):
yamlplaybook: incident_type: string severity: "P0" | "P1" | "P2" | "P3" nist_phases: - phase: "Preparation" | "Detection & Analysis" | "Containment" | "Eradication" | "Recovery" | "Post-Incident" steps: array[string] duration_estimate: string success_criteria: string escalation_matrix: - role: string contact_method: string escalation_threshold: string post_mortem_template: incident_summary: string timeline: array[{timestamp, event, actor}] root_cause: string impact: {customers_affected, duration, revenue_impact} action_items: array[{owner, description, due_date, priority}] runbook: # T2 only service_name: string failure_modes: array[{scenario, symptoms, remediation_steps}] rollback_procedure: array[string] health_checks: array[{name, command, expected_result}] dependencies: array[{service, startup_order, health_endpoint}] communication_plan: # T2 only internal_stakeholders: array[{role, notification_threshold, channel}] external_communication: array[{audience, template, approval_required}] status_page_updates: {cadence, template}
Format: JSON or YAML (consumer specifies)
Guarantees:
Input:
json{ "incident_type": "data-breach", "severity_level": "P0", "compliance_requirements": ["HIPAA", "SOC2"], "tier": "T1" }
Output (abbreviated):
yamlplaybook: incident_type: data-breach severity: P0 nist_phases: - phase: Containment steps: - Isolate affected systems from network - Preserve forensic evidence (logs, memory dumps) - Revoke compromised credentials duration_estimate: 30-60 minutes - phase: Post-Incident steps: - HIPAA breach notification to HHS within 60 days - SOC2 CC7.3 communication documentation escalation_matrix: - {role: CISO, contact: PagerDuty, threshold: "15 min"} - {role: Legal, contact: Email, threshold: "30 min"}
Token budgets:
Safety:
Auditability:
Determinism:
Validation:
Primary sources (NIST SP 800-61 compliance):
Industry best practices:
Compliance frameworks:
Templates and tools:
/skills/resilience-incident-generator/resources/ for:playbook-template.md - NIST SP 800-61 aligned playbook structureescalation-matrix.csv - Contact escalation templatepost-mortem-template.md - 5 Whys root cause analysis templaterunbook-template.md - Service-specific runbook structure| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 19,337 | 11,901 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,028 | 5,877 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 29,595 | 28,099 | -5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,691 | 8,797 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 30,620 | 16,891 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,401 | 6,580 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 12,313 | 7,210 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,937 | 4,690 | +142% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 11,349 | 7,683 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,893 | 4,767 | +152% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 2,608 | 4,784 | +83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 474 | 4,409 | +830% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 9,401 | 2,646 | -72% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,756 | 3,966 | +126% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 7,697 | 8,892 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,547 | 5,036 | +226% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 7,946 | 8,495 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,394 | 4,987 | +258% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 8,037 | 6,983 | -13% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,509 | 4,671 | +210% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→fail | 13,221 | 12,254 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,329 | 5,642 | +142% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 8,738 | 3,355 | -62% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,557 | 4,144 | +166% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 12,420 | 12,318 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,973 | 5,706 | +189% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 14,828 | 17,932 | +21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,548 | 6,658 | +161% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 8,602 | 3,529 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,547 | 4,156 | +169% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 4,635 | 3,504 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 780 | 4,138 | +431% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 9,236 | 6,375 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,502 | 4,564 | +204% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 6,547 | 3,495 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,121 | 4,005 | +257% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 9,634 | 6,054 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,750 | 4,513 | +158% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 8,377 | 6,203 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,597 | 4,645 | +191% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 6,673 | 11,113 | +67% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,147 | 5,459 | +376% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 8,803 | 15,690 | +78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,542 | 6,310 | +309% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→pass | 10,830 | 15,368 | +42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,162 | 6,243 | +189% | 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. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +35 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 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.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.