incident-response
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when a security incident has been detected or declared and needs classification, triage, escalation path determination, and forensic evidence collection. Covers SEV1-SEV4 classification, false positive filtering, incident taxonomy, and NIST SP 800-61 lifecycle.
81 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- anuragsarkar97/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- tigu77/tiguclawtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- darkweb19/skillsword for word, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- mdigital94/vibe-shield-plugintheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nisarth/claude-skills-storetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- aymardkouakou/claude-gh-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use dora-metrics, background-jobs and 9 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
jholhewresSkilldora-metrics
Calculate DORA metrics from git + deploy logs
Also in 3 projects that use this
YepAPISkillbackground-jobs
Queue workers with BullMQ/Inngest/Trigger.dev, job retries, dead letter queues, concurrency.
Also in 4 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkilldata-modeling
Use when the app needs to store or read data — records, a database, entities, CRUD, lists, "save/remember X", or per-user data with row-level security. This app's data layer is Rayfin's: you declare entities as TypeScript classes with decorators in rayfin/data/, register them in the schema, and read/write them through the typed rayfin-client. Covers: defining an @entity, field decorators, registering it, per-entity access with @role, owner-only row-level security, and the client query/mutation API. Triggers: data, database, model, entity, schema, table, record, CRUD, create, read, update, delete, list, store, save, persist, per-user, row-level security, RLS, access control, ownership.
Also in 7 projects that use this
YepAPISkilldata-pipelines
ETL patterns, cron scheduling, queue-based processing, and batch jobs with Inngest/BullMQ.
Also in 4 projects that use this
mmondoraSkillinfrastructure-as-code
Infrastructure as Code with Terraform and Pulumi. State management, modularity, drift detection, secrets handling. Use when provisioning cloud resources, writing Terraform/Pulumi modules, or managing infrastructure configuration.
Also in 5 projects that use this
motao123Skillbrowser-verification
Use when a change needs browser-level evidence such as UI flow checks, form interaction validation, console inspection, or end-to-end smoke verification. This skill focuses on observable behavior instead of code assumptions.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions81 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 4
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18100% same
- csiddhant796-blip/claude-skills-collection★ 2100% same
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1100% same
- darkweb19/skills★ 0100% same
Edited · 1
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 294% same
Wrote their own version · 76
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- microsoft/hve-core★ 1.6ksame name
- hypnguyen1209/offensive-claude★ 401same name
- duyet/clickhouse-monitoring★ 303same name
- kid-sid/claude-spellbook★ 190same name
- irahardianto/awesome-agv★ 157same name
- harness/harness-skills★ 127same name
- nahid-sparktales/agent-dispatcher★ 59same name
- Happy-Technologies-LLC/happy-platform-skills★ 41same name
- drafthq/draft★ 40same name
66 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository84 other files it gives its agents.
- api-design-reviewerSkill
- api-test-suite-builderSkill
- ask-mattSkill
- aws-solution-architectSkill
- captureSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- ci-cd-pipeline-builderSkill
- cloud-securitySkill
- codebase-designSkill
- codebase-onboardingSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- context-compressSkill
- context-modeSkill
- database-designerSkill
- database-schema-designerSkill
- dependency-auditorSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- env-secrets-managerSkill
- finish-branchSkill
- firecrawlSkill
- focused-fixSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- get-shit-doneSkill
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- git-worktree-managerSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- implementSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- memSkill
- migration-architectSkill
- monorepo-navigatorSkill
- observability-designerSkill
- performance-profilerSkill
- playwright-testingSkill
- ponytail-auditSkill
- ponytail-debtSkill
- ponytail-gainSkill
- ponytail-helpSkill
- ponytail-reviewSkill
- ponytailSkill
- prompt-engineeringSkill
- prototypeSkill
- pr-review-expertSkill
- rag-architectSkill
- red-teamSkill
- reflectSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- root-cause-tracingSkill
- runbook-generatorSkill
- self-evalSkill
- senior-architectSkill
- senior-backendSkill
- senior-devopsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 64 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 186
Every evidence item must be recorded with:
- Distinctive: line 232
Operational rule: If scope is unclear at declaration, assume the most restrictive applicable deadline and confirm scope within the first …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 64 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Incident Response
Incident response skill for the full lifecycle from initial triage through forensic collection, severity declaration, and escalation routing. This is NOT threat hunting (see threat-detection) or post-incident compliance mapping (see governance/compliance-mapping) — this is about classifying, triaging, and managing declared security incidents.
Table of Contents
- Overview
- Incident Triage Tool
- Incident Classification
- Severity Framework
- False Positive Filtering
- Forensic Evidence Collection
- Escalation Paths
- Regulatory Notification Obligations
- Workflows
- Anti-Patterns
- Cross-References
Overview
What This Skill Does
This skill provides the methodology and tooling for incident triage and response — classifying security events into typed incidents, scoring severity, filtering false positives, determining escalation paths, and initiating forensic evidence collection under chain-of-custody controls.
Distinction from Other Security Skills
| Skill | Focus | Approach |
| incident-response (this) | Active incidents | Reactive — classify, escalate, collect evidence |
| threat-detection | Pre-incident hunting | Proactive — find threats before alerts fire |
| cloud-security | Cloud posture assessment | Preventive — IAM, S3, network misconfiguration |
| red-team | Offensive simulation | Offensive — test detection and response capability |
Prerequisites
A security event must be ingested before triage. Events can come from SIEM alerts, EDR detections, threat intel feeds, or user reports. The triage tool accepts JSON event payloads; see the input schema below.
Incident Triage Tool
The incident_triage.py tool classifies events, checks false positives, scores severity, determines escalation, and performs forensic pre-analysis.
# Classify an event from JSON file
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --input event.json --classify --json
# Classify with false positive filtering enabled
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --input event.json --classify --false-positive-check --json
# Force a severity level for tabletop exercises
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --input event.json --severity sev1 --json
# Read event from stdin
echo '{"event_type": "ransomware", "host": "prod-db-01", "raw_payload": {}}' | \
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --classify --false-positive-check --jsonInput Event Schema
{
"event_type": "ransomware",
"host": "prod-db-01",
"user": "svc_backup",
"source_ip": "10.1.2.3",
"timestamp": "2024-01-15T14:32:00Z",
"raw_payload": {}
}Exit Codes
| Code | Meaning | Required Response |
| 0 | SEV3/SEV4 or clean | Standard ticket-based handling |
| 1 | SEV2 — elevated | 1-hour bridge call, async coordination |
| 2 | SEV1 — critical | Immediate 15-minute war room, all-hands |
Incident Classification
Security events are classified into 14 incident types. Classification drives default severity, MITRE technique mapping, and response SLA.
Incident Taxonomy
| Incident Type | Default Severity | MITRE Technique | Response SLA |
| ransomware | SEV1 | T1486 | 15 minutes |
| data_exfiltration | SEV1 | T1048 | 15 minutes |
| apt_intrusion | SEV1 | T1566 | 15 minutes |
| supply_chain_compromise | SEV1 | T1195 | 15 minutes |
| domain_controller_breach | SEV1 | T1078.002 | 15 minutes |
| credential_compromise | SEV2 | T1110 | 1 hour |
| lateral_movement | SEV2 | T1021 | 1 hour |
| malware_infection | SEV2 | T1204 | 1 hour |
| insider_threat | SEV2 | T1078 | 1 hour |
| cloud_account_compromise | SEV2 | T1078.004 | 1 hour |
| unauthorized_access | SEV3 | T1190 | 4 hours |
| policy_violation | SEV3 | N/A | 4 hours |
| phishing_attempt | SEV4 | T1566.001 | 24 hours |
| security_alert | SEV4 | N/A | 24 hours |
SEV Escalation Triggers
Any of the following automatically re-declare a higher severity:
| Trigger | New Severity |
| Ransomware note found | SEV1 |
| Active exfiltration confirmed | SEV1 |
| CloudTrail or SIEM disabled | SEV1 |
| Domain controller access confirmed | SEV1 |
| Second system compromised | SEV1 |
| Exfiltration volume exceeds 1 GB | SEV2 minimum |
| C-suite account accessed | SEV2 minimum |
Severity Framework
SEV Level Matrix
| Level | Name | Criteria | Skills Invoked | Escalation Path |
| SEV1 | Critical | Confirmed ransomware; active PII/PHI exfiltration (>10K records); domain controller breach; defense evasion (CloudTrail disabled); supply chain compromise | All skills (parallel) | SOC Lead → CISO → CEO → Board Chair |
| SEV2 | High | Confirmed unauthorized access to sensitive systems; credential compromise with elevated privileges; lateral movement confirmed; ransomware indicators without confirmed execution | triage + containment + forensics | SOC Lead → CISO |
| SEV3 | Medium | Suspected unauthorized access (unconfirmed); malware detected and contained; single account compromise (no priv escalation) | triage + containment | SOC Lead → Security Manager |
| SEV4 | Low | Security alert with no confirmed impact; informational indicator; policy violation with no data risk | triage only | L3 Analyst queue |
False Positive Filtering
The triage tool applies five filters before escalating to prevent false positive inflation.
False Positive Filter Types
| Filter | Description | Example Pattern |
| CI/CD agent activity | Known build/deploy agents flagged as anomalies | jenkins, github-actions, circleci, gitlab-runner |
| Test environment tagging | Assets tagged as non-production | test-, staging-, dev-, sandbox- |
| Scheduled job patterns | Expected batch processes triggering alerts | cron, scheduled_task, batch_job, backup_ |
| Whitelisted identities | Explicitly approved service accounts | svc_monitoring, svc_backup, datadog-agent |
| Scanner activity | Known security scanners and vulnerability tools | nessus, qualys, rapid7, aws_inspector |
A confirmed false positive suppresses escalation and logs the suppression reason for audit purposes. Recurring false positives from the same source should be tuned out at the detection layer, not filtered repeatedly at triage.
Forensic Evidence Collection
Evidence collection follows the DFRWS six-phase framework and the principle of volatile-first acquisition.
DFRWS Six Phases
| Phase | Activity | Priority |
| Identification | Identify what evidence exists and where | Immediate |
| Preservation | Prevent modification — write-block, snapshot, legal hold | Immediate |
| Collection | Acquire evidence in order of volatility | Immediate |
| Examination | Technical analysis of collected evidence | Within 2 hours |
| Analysis | Interpret findings in investigative context | Within 4 hours |
| Presentation | Produce findings report with chain of custody | Before incident closure |
Volatile Evidence — Collect First
- Live memory (RAM dump) — lost on reboot
- Running processes and open network connections (
netstat,ps) - Logged-in users and active sessions
- System uptime and current time (for timeline anchoring)
- Environment variables and loaded kernel modules
Chain of Custody Requirements
Every evidence item must be recorded with:
- SHA-256 hash at acquisition time
- Acquisition timestamp in UTC with timezone offset
- Tool provenance (FTK Imager, Volatility, dd, AWS CloudTrail export)
- Investigator identity
- Transfer log (who had custody and when)
Escalation Paths
By Severity
| Severity | Immediate Contact | Bridge Call | External Notification |
| SEV1 | SOC Lead + CISO (15 min) | Immediate war room | Legal + PR standby; regulatory notification per deadline table |
| SEV2 | SOC Lead (30 min async) | 1-hour bridge | Legal notification if PII involved |
| SEV3 | Security Manager (4 hours) | Async only | None unless scope expands |
| SEV4 | L3 Analyst queue (24 hours) | None | None |
By Incident Type
| Incident Type | Primary Escalation | Secondary |
| Ransomware / APT | CISO + CEO | Board if data at risk |
| PII/PHI breach | Legal + CISO | Regulatory body (per deadline table) |
| Cloud account compromise | Cloud security team | CISO |
| Insider threat | HR + Legal + CISO | Law enforcement if criminal |
| Supply chain | CISO + Vendor management | Board |
Regulatory Notification Obligations
The notification clock starts at incident declaration, not at investigation completion.
| Framework | Incident Type | Deadline | Penalty |
| GDPR (EU 2016/679) | Personal data breach | 72 hours after discovery | Up to 4% global revenue |
| PCI-DSS v4.0 | Cardholder data breach | 24 hours to acquirer | Card brand fines |
| HIPAA (45 CFR 164) | PHI breach (>500 individuals) | 60 days after discovery | Up to $1.9M per violation category |
| NY DFS 23 NYCRR 500 | Cybersecurity event | 72 hours to DFS | Regulatory sanctions |
| SEC Rule (17 CFR 229.106) | Material cybersecurity incident | 4 business days after materiality determination | SEC enforcement |
| CCPA / CPRA | Breach of sensitive PI | Without unreasonable delay | AG enforcement; private right of action |
| NIS2 (EU 2022/2555) | Significant incident (essential services) | 24-hour early warning; 72-hour notification | National authority sanctions |
Operational rule: If scope is unclear at declaration, assume the most restrictive applicable deadline and confirm scope within the first response window.
Full deadline reference: references/regulatory-deadlines.md
Workflows
Workflow 1: Quick Triage (15 Minutes)
For single alert requiring classification before escalation decision:
# 1. Classify the event with false positive filtering
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --input alert.json \
--classify --false-positive-check --json
# 2. Review severity, escalation_path, and false_positive_flag in output
# 3. If severity = sev1 or sev2, page SOC Lead immediately
# 4. If false_positive_flag = true, document and closeDecision: Exit code 2 = SEV1 war room now. Exit code 1 = SEV2 bridge call within 30 minutes.
Workflow 2: Full Incident Response (SEV1)
T+0 Detection arrives (SIEM alert, EDR, user report)
T+5 Classify with incident_triage.py --classify --false-positive-check
T+10 If SEV1: page CISO, open war room, start regulatory clock
T+15 Initiate forensic collection (volatile evidence first)
T+15 Containment assessment (parallel with forensics)
T+30 Human approval gate for any containment action
T+45 Execute approved containment
T+60 Assess containment effectiveness, brief Legal if PII/PHI scope
T+4h Final forensic evidence package, dwell time estimate
T+8h Eradication and recovery plan
T+72h Regulatory notification submission (if GDPR/NIS2 triggered)# Full classification with forensic context
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --input incident.json \
--classify --false-positive-check --severity sev1 --json > incident_triage_output.json
# Forensic pre-analysis
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --input incident.json --json | \
jq '.forensic_findings, .chain_of_custody_steps'Workflow 3: Tabletop Exercise Simulation
Simulate incidents at specific severity levels without real events:
# Simulate SEV1 ransomware incident
echo '{"event_type": "ransomware", "host": "prod-db-01", "user": "svc_backup"}' | \
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --classify --severity sev1 --json
# Simulate SEV2 credential compromise
echo '{"event_type": "credential_compromise", "user": "admin_user", "source_ip": "203.0.113.5"}' | \
python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --classify --false-positive-check --json
# Verify escalation paths for all 14 incident types
for type in ransomware data_exfiltration credential_compromise lateral_movement; do
echo "{\"event_type\": \"$type\"}" | python3 scripts/incident_triage.py --classify --json
doneAnti-Patterns
- Starting the notification clock at investigation completion — Regulatory clocks (GDPR 72 hours, PCI 24 hours) start at discovery, not investigation completion. Declaring late exposes the organization to maximum penalties even if the incident itself was minor.
- Containing before collecting volatile evidence — Rebooting or isolating a system destroys RAM, running processes, and active connections. Forensic collection of volatile evidence must happen in parallel with containment, never after.
- Skipping false positive verification before escalation — Escalating every alert to SEV1 degrades SOC credibility and causes alert fatigue. Always run false positive filters before paging the CISO.
- Undocumented incident command decisions — Every decision made during a SEV1, including decisions made under uncertainty, must be logged in the evidence chain with timestamp and rationale. Undocumented decisions cannot be defended in regulatory investigations.
- Treating incident closure as investigation completion — Incidents are closed when eradication and recovery are complete, not when the investigation is done. The forensic report and regulatory submissions may continue after operational closure.
- Single-source classification — Classifying an incident from a single data source (one SIEM alert) without corroborating evidence frequently leads to misclassification. Collect at least two independent signals before declaring SEV1.
- Bypassing human approval gates for containment — Automated containment actions (network isolation, credential revocation) taken without human approval can cause production outages, destroy evidence, and create liability. Human approval is non-negotiable for all mutating containment actions.
Cross-References
| Skill | Relationship |
| threat-detection | Confirmed hunting findings escalate to incident-response for triage and classification |
| cloud-security | Cloud posture findings (IAM compromise, S3 exposure) may trigger incident classification |
| red-team | Red team findings validate detection coverage; confirmed gaps become hunting hypotheses |
| security-pen-testing | Pen test vulnerabilities exploited in the wild escalate to incident-response for active incident handling |
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

