Yao-meta-skill incident-command-governor
Build governed incident command packets. Use when asked to standardize incident review, run severity assessment, or assemble incident communication.
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/yaojingang/yao-meta-skill
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/yaojingang/yao-meta-skill "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/examples/governed-incident-command/generated-skill" ~/.claude/skills/yaojingang-yao-meta-skill-incident-command-governor && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
examples/governed-incident-command/generated-skill/SKILL.mdsource content
Incident Command Governor
When To Use
- You need a reusable incident command packet from messy operational inputs.
- You need explicit severity assessment, stakeholder updates, and action ownership.
- You need a governed workflow that can be reviewed, maintained, and audited over time.
Do Not Use
- The task is only to explain an incident concept.
- The task is only to draft a one-off update.
- The request is still brainstorming and not yet packaging a repeatable incident workflow.
Workflow
- Gather the minimum incident inputs:
- incident summary
- timeline evidence
- affected systems and customers
- severity indicators
- owners and responders
- stakeholder audiences
- Read
to assign or confirm severity.references/severity-matrix.md - Read
to shape internal and external updates.references/comms-policy.md - Read
before finalizing, because this skill is maintained under a monthly review cadence.references/review-policy.md - Use
withscripts/build_incident_packet.py
when deterministic packet assembly is needed.input/incident_input_example.json - Produce one governed incident packet with:
- incident summary
- severity block
- evidence-backed timeline
- affected scope
- owner and action table
- internal and external comms blocks
- explicit open risks and review notes
- Stop and report blockers if severity evidence or ownership data is missing.
Output Contract
The final answer must include:
- a concise incident summary
- explicit severity and rationale
- a timeline section
- impact scope
- owners and next actions
- stakeholder communication blocks
- governance note for follow-up review
Validation Checklist
- Severity is justified with evidence, not guessed.
- Owner and next actions are explicit.
- Communications are separated by audience.
- Missing evidence is surfaced as a blocker.
- The packet can be reviewed again without reconstructing context from chat history.
Reference Map
- Read
for severity rules.references/severity-matrix.md - Read
for communication guidance.references/comms-policy.md - Read
for review cadence and governed lifecycle expectations.references/review-policy.md - Inspect
for routing boundaries.evals/trigger_cases.json - Inspect
for an example final artifact.outputs/incident_packet_example.md - Inspect
for the current maturity snapshot.reports/governance_score.json