Use when performing major incident review — guides teams through a structured, blameless review of major incidents, covering timeline reconstruction, root cause analysis, contributing factors, and corrective actions. This template ensures incidents become learning opportunities that drive systemic improvements rather than finger-pointing exercises.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add cloudthinker-ai/CloudSkills --skill major-incident-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Major Incident Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/cloudthinker-ai-major-incident-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: major-incident-review
enabled: true
description: |
Use when performing major incident review — guides teams through a structured,
blameless review of major incidents, covering timeline reconstruction, root
cause analysis, contributing factors, and corrective actions. This template
ensures incidents become learning opportunities that drive systemic
improvements rather than finger-pointing exercises.
required_connections:
- prefix: incident-management
label: "Incident Management Platform"
- prefix: monitoring
label: "Monitoring Platform"
- prefix: ticketing
label: "Ticketing System"
config_fields:
- key: incident_id
label: "Incident ID"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., INC-2026-0042"
- key: incident_date
label: "Incident Date"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., 2026-03-10"
- key: severity
label: "Severity Level"
required: true
placeholder: "e.g., SEV1, P0"
features:
- INCIDENT_REVIEW
- POSTMORTEM
- SRE_OPS
---
# Major Incident Review
## Phase 1: Incident Summary
Provide a concise overview of the incident.
- [ ] Incident ID: ___
- [ ] Date/Time (UTC): ___ to ___
- [ ] Duration: ___
- [ ] Severity: ___
- [ ] Services affected: ___
- [ ] Customer impact: ___
- [ ] Revenue impact (if known): ___
- [ ] SLA impact: ___
- [ ] Incident commander: ___
**One-sentence summary:** ___
## Phase 2: Timeline Reconstruction
Build a detailed, factual timeline using logs, metrics, and chat records.
| Time (UTC) | Event | Source |
|------------|-------|--------|
| | First anomaly detected | Monitoring |
| | Alert fired | Alerting system |
| | Engineer paged | On-call system |
| | Investigation started | Chat logs |
| | Root cause identified | |
| | Mitigation applied | |
| | Service restored | |
| | Incident closed | |
- [ ] All timestamps verified against system logs
- [ ] Detection time: ___ (time from first anomaly to alert)
- [ ] Response time: ___ (time from alert to engineer engaged)
- [ ] Mitigation time: ___ (time from engaged to impact resolved)
## Phase 3: Root Cause Analysis
**What happened (proximate cause):** ___
**Why it happened (root cause):** ___
**Contributing factors:**
| Factor | Category | Preventable |
|--------|----------|:-----------:|
| | Code / Config / Process / Human / External | Y/N |
**Five Whys Analysis:**
1. Why did ___? Because ___
2. Why did ___? Because ___
3. Why did ___? Because ___
4. Why did ___? Because ___
5. Why did ___? Because ___
## Phase 4: What Went Well / What Needs Improvement
**What went well:**
1.
2.
3.
**What needs improvement:**
1.
2.
3.
**Where we got lucky:**
1.
2.
## Phase 5: Corrective Actions
| Action | Type | Priority | Owner | Due Date | Tracking Ticket |
|--------|------|:--------:|-------|----------|-----------------|
| | Prevent / Detect / Mitigate | P0/P1/P2 | | | |
**Action Types:**
- **Prevent:** Stop this class of incident from happening
- **Detect:** Catch it faster next time
- **Mitigate:** Reduce impact when it does happen
- [ ] Each action has a clear owner and due date
- [ ] Actions address root cause, not just symptoms
- [ ] At least one action improves detection time
## Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|----------|---------|-----|
| "We can skip some steps for this case" | Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them | Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate |
| "The user seems to already know what to do" | Complete all workflow phases with the user | The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses |
| "This is a minor case, full process is overkill" | Scale the process down, don't turn it off | Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears |
| "I'll fill in the details later" | Complete each section before moving on | Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate |
| "The template output isn't necessary" | Always produce the structured output format | Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams |
## Output Format
### Summary
- **Incident:** ___
- **Severity:** ___
- **Duration:** ___
- **Root cause:** ___
- **Customer impact:** ___
- **Corrective actions:** ___ total (___ P0, ___ P1, ___ P2)
### Action Items
- [ ] Publish incident review to engineering wiki
- [ ] Create tracking tickets for all corrective actions
- [ ] Present review at next engineering all-hands or SRE sync
- [ ] Schedule 30-day follow-up to verify corrective actions are complete
- [ ] Update monitoring and alerting based on detection gaps
- [ ] Update runbooks with lessons learned
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!