Runs an operational incident from detection to closed action — declaring it and naming a commander, separating the people restoring service from the people communicating, keeping a timeline as it happens, deciding when it is over, and running a review that produces a small number of changes someone actually completes. Use this to set up an incident process, run one, work out why the same failure keeps recurring, or fix a review practice that generates findings nobody closes.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
An incident is any unplanned disruption significant enough that normal work stops until it is resolved. The discipline exists because the instincts that serve people well in ordinary work — investigate thoroughly, decide carefully, keep everyone informed — all fail under time pressure unless someone has structured them in advance.
This covers operational incidents generally. For security incidents, where evidence preservation
and disclosure obligations change the order of operations, see security:incident-response.
The most expensive minutes are the ones spent deciding whether this is an incident. Set a low threshold for declaring and accept that some declarations will be withdrawn — an incident stood down after twenty minutes costs far less than one that ran for two hours as a conversation between three people who each assumed someone else had it.
Severity should be defined in advance, in terms of customer impact rather than internal inconvenience, with each level carrying a stated response: who is notified, how fast, and who can be woken.
One person owns the incident: they decide, they sequence, they assign. They should not be the person with their hands in the system — the moment the commander starts debugging, nobody is running the incident and the timeline stops being kept.
Separate three roles even in a small response: the commander, the people restoring service, and one person handling communication. Combining the first and third is survivable; combining the first and second is how incidents run long without anyone noticing they have.
The goal during the incident is service restored, not cause understood. Roll back, fail over, disable the feature, add capacity — whatever returns the customer to working. Diagnosis is tomorrow's work, and pursuing it while people are affected is the most common way a thirty-minute outage becomes a four-hour one.
Preserve what you will need to diagnose before you destroy it. Capture logs, a snapshot, the current state — then restore. This is the one step where a minute spent now saves the entire review.
Written as it happens, not reconstructed afterward. What was observed, what was changed, at what time, by whom. Memory of an incident is unreliable within hours and the timeline is what makes the review worth anything.
One channel, and everything in it. Side conversations produce a response where two people are acting on different information.
Say what is happening, what you are doing, what the impact is, and when you will next update — then send that next update on time even if it says nothing has changed. Silence is read as absence, and the update cost is trivial compared to the calls it prevents.
Do not speculate on cause while the incident is open. An early theory shared externally and later withdrawn does more damage than the outage.
Service restored is not the same as incident closed. Confirm recovery is holding, confirm the backlog it created has been worked through, and say explicitly that it is over so people can stop.
Within a few days, while memory is fresh. The question is what about the system made this failure possible and made it take this long to resolve — not who typed the command. A review that produces blame produces less information every subsequent time, because people stop volunteering what actually happened.
Produce one or two changes, not fifteen. A short list that gets done beats a thorough list that does not, and an unclosed action from a previous incident is the most common finding in the next one. Track them to completion somewhere visible, with owners and dates.
references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。