Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to apokamo/kaji. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apokamo/kaji/main/.claude/skills/incident-report/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/apokamo/kajiWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-report)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-report/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-report"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/apokamo/kaji/incident-report.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Agent Snooping · line 28 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00096 | $0.01499 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00749 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00019 | $0.00300 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00150 |
Grade A, and why
incident-report scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 100 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Incident Report（最終提案）
収束した調査 artifact を正本として、インシデントイシューへ最終提案コメントを投稿する。 review PASS（初回受理）と verify PASS（修正後受理）の 2 経路がここに合流する。
全終端は「提案」（#303 決定 D）: ラベル付与・除去、クローズ / reopen、バグイシュー化、統合の実行は 一切行わない。それらは人間の処遇判断。
ワークフロー内の位置: review/verify（PASS）→ report → end
入力
| 変数 | 型 | 説明 |
|---|---|---|
issue_id |
str | 対象インシデントイシュー ID |
issue_ref |
str | 人間可読の Issue 参照 |
step_id |
str | 現在のステップ ID |
手動実行時は $ARGUMENTS 第 1 トークンを issue_id とする。
共通ルール
.claude/skills/incident-investigate/SKILL.md § 全 incident-* skill 共通ルールに従う。
実行手順
Step 1: 調査 artifact の読み込み
artifact root を解決する（共通ルール参照）:
ART="$(kaji config artifacts-dir)"
$ART/[issue_id]/investigation/report.md（収束済み）を正本として読み込む。
Step 2: 最終提案コメントの構成
以下を含む最終提案コメントを構成する（Issue 完了条件の「可読サマリ・意味的類似の指摘・統合提案」に対応）。
- 可読サマリ: 障害の 2〜3 文の平易な要約（テンプレート生成の起票本文より高い可読性）。
- 調査結論: conclusion（6 値）＋確度＋根拠 citation の要約。
- 対応策の提案: 緩和策・恒久対策（バグイシュー化する場合の本文ドラフトを含む。実行は人間）。
- 意味的類似インシデントの指摘: 第1層のあいまい照合候補を意味レベルで再評価し、文字列類似では 拾えない類似も指摘する（#303 決定 F）。
- 統合提案: conclusion が
duplicateの場合、統合先イシューと根拠（実行は人間）。 - 処遇メニュー: conclusion → 推奨ラベル・後続アクションの対応表（チェックボックス形式。人間が
そのまま実行判断できる形。
docs/dev/incident-labels.mdの対応表と整合させる）。 - モデルメタデータ: 提案役 / 査読役モデル・査読経路・縮退の有無。
処遇メニューの対応表（conclusion → 推奨ラベル・後続アクション。実行は人間）:
| conclusion | 推奨 status ラベル | 推奨 classification ラベル | 後続アクション（人間が実行） |
|---|---|---|---|
internal-bug |
incident:mitigated 等 |
incident:cause:internal |
バグイシュー化ドラフトを起票、緩和/恒久対策の判断 |
upstream |
incident:mitigated 等 |
incident:cause:upstream |
上流 issue への報告 / watch、回避策の適用 |
environment |
incident:mitigated 等 |
incident:cause:environment |
環境修正、運用手順の更新 |
transient |
（第1層が自動付与済みの場合あり） | incident:cause:transient |
頻度を監視。頻発なら昇格判断 |
duplicate |
（統合先に集約） | 統合先に準ずる | 統合先への集約（実行は人間） |
INCONCLUSIVE |
incident:investigating 維持 |
付与しない | 不足証拠の収集後に再調査 |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 100 lines · 96 tokens per session scan A 10dd4400705d
incident-report is a skill published in the GitHub repository apokamo/kaji (12 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 96 tokens to every session and 1,499 once invoked, about $0.0005 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
superpowers-systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
rust-check
Run cargo check on the current Rust project to find compile errors.
debug
Reproduce, minimize, localize, identify root cause, and distinguish diagnosis from an authorized fix. Prefer root-cause over symptom patches.
langsmith-tracing
LangSmith tracing and debugging setup for LLM applications. Configure observability, capture traces, and enable debugging for LangChain/LangGraph agents.
behavior-contract
Bug condition/postcondition formalization as testable Behavior Contracts. Defines invariants that must be preserved across fixes.
quality-hooks
Language-specific auto-lint/format/typecheck pipeline. Supports Python (ruff+pyright), TypeScript (prettier+eslint+tsc), Go (gofmt+golangci-lint). Auto-fix and convergence loops.