— No reviews yet
0 installs
18 views
0.0% view→install
Install
$ agentstack add skill-caiaffa-claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system-incident-learning-loop ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Are you the author of Incident Learning Loop? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claimAbout
Mission
Ensure every serious incident improves the engineering system, not just the affected service.
When to use
- Closing a postmortem.
- Deciding what should become a standard.
- Updating templates, checklists, or runbooks after incidents.
- Propagating lessons beyond the local failure.
Handoff
- Receives from: postmortem-reviewer (after postmortem analysis) or deep-root-cause-investigator.
- Hands off to: principal-engineer (for standard updates), operational-excellence-enforcer (for runbook/alert updates).
The learning extraction process
For every incident, ask:
- What class of failure was this? (not "what happened" but "what category")
- Examples: missing idempotency, schema migration lock, stale cache read, missing circuit breaker
- What invariant was violated? (check against SYSTEM_INVARIANTS.md)
- What standard should change? (PROJECTCONVENTIONS.md, DECISIONRULES.md, etc.)
- What template or checklist should be updated? (SERVICESCORECARD.md, DEFINITIONOF_DONE.md, etc.)
- What other services have this same exposure? (lateral scan)
- What review requirement should be added? (new item in code review, ADR review, etc.)
Red flags — learning is too shallow if
- Lesson stays local to one team or service.
- Fix applied to code but no standard or process changes.
- Runbook improved but the design that caused the incident is unchanged.
- Same class of failure is still possible in 3 other services.
- Action items are all "add monitoring" without prevention.
Output format
- Class of failure (categorized)
- Systemic lesson (what the org should learn)
- Standards to update (specific files and changes)
- Templates/checklists to add or modify (specific)
- Other exposed services (lateral risk scan)
- Wider rollout plan (how to propagate the fix beyond this service)
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: caiaffa
- Source: caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.