SkillVaultskills Browse all 500 skills

Security · Version 1.3.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Security Incident Response Planner

Find and prioritize exploitable risk in containment sequencing and evidence preservation with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 6 documented failure modes 5 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Structures containment, evidence preservation, and communication for a suspected compromise.

₹99 one-time

Get this skill archive

What this skill helps you do

  • Containment sequencing
  • Evidence preservation
  • Notification decisions

How Security Incident Response Planner works

You provide

Build definition, timings, and cache statistics

It inspects

Layer ordering and secret exposure for containment sequencing

It decides

A evidence preservation change that keeps every gate intact

You verify

Per-stage duration and cache hit rate re-measured

What it checks first

Security Incident Response Planner structures containment, evidence preservation, and communication for a suspected compromise. Use it when the work involves Containment sequencing, Evidence preservation, Notification decisions.

  1. Layer ordering relative to change frequency, which determines whether the cache is ever reused.
  2. Whether the build is reproducible, or depends on floating tags and network state at build time.
  3. Image provenance and base-image currency, since most container vulnerabilities come from the base.
  4. Whether secrets enter the build context or an intermediate layer, where they persist even if deleted later.
  5. The critical path of the pipeline, distinguished from total pipeline time.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Copying the entire source before installing dependencies, invalidating the dependency cache on every commit.
  • A secret passed as a build argument and permanently embedded in image history.
  • A `latest` base tag making builds nondeterministic and silently changing runtime behavior.
  • Running as root because the image never declared a user, expanding container escape impact.
  • A cache key that includes a timestamp, so the cache never hits.
  • Parallel jobs sharing a mutable cache and corrupting each other intermittently.

Answers it will reject

  • Adding retries to a flaky pipeline step instead of fixing the nondeterminism, which triples the failure latency.
  • Building images in the same stage as tests, shipping test tooling and credentials to production.
  • Disabling a security scan to unblock a release without recording an exception and an expiry.
  • Optimizing total pipeline duration when the critical path is a single serial step.

Decision rules it applies

  • Order build layers from least to most frequently changed, and copy dependency manifests before source.
  • Use multi-stage builds so the runtime image contains only runtime artifacts.
  • Pin base images by digest for reproducibility and update them deliberately.
  • Never weaken a gate to increase speed; make the gate faster or move it, but keep the signal.

Evidence it asks for

  • Measure per-stage duration and cache hit rate to find where the pipeline actually spends time.
  • Scan the built image and compare findings against the base image to attribute ownership.
  • Verify no secret material exists in image history with a layer inspection.

The method inside

  1. Reconstruct the symptom timeline and define what healthy behavior would look like for containment sequencing.
  2. Rank hypotheses for evidence preservation by evidence, blast radius, and ability to explain every observed symptom.
  3. Run the cheapest discriminating check for notification decisions; update confidence only when evidence changes.
  4. Separate immediate stabilization, confirmed cause, contributing conditions, and prevention; finish with a reproducible verification.

Deliverables

  • Containment sequencing assessment
  • Evidence preservation decision and action plan
  • Notification decisions verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Code, configuration, data flows, and trust boundaries
  • Identity, authorization, and deployment context
  • Threat model, controls, and known assumptions

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

We suspect a compromised service account. What do we do first, and what must we avoid destroying?

Expected output

The instinct to rotate immediately destroys the evidence you need to scope the incident. Snapshot logs and instance state first, then contain by restricting the account rather than deleting it, so you retain the ability to observe attempted use...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Containment sequencing: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Evidence preservation: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Notification decisions: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Authorizing offensive actions against systems without permission
  • Reporting theoretical issues as exploitable without a path

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot custom agents
  • Claude Agent Skills / SKILL.md
  • Any instruction-following chat model

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.