SkillVaultskills Browse all 1,000+ 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 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

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

₹199 one-time

Get this skill archive

Install in your AI coding tool

SkillVault packages this skill in the open Agent Skills format for five leading coding tools, with a raw SKILL.md fallback for every other compatible IDE or agent.

See the complete graphical installation and usage guide

What this skill helps you do

  • Containment sequencing
  • Evidence preservation
  • Notification decisions

How Security Incident Response Planner works

You provide

Code, configuration, and the deployment trust model

It inspects

Reachable input-to-sink paths for containment sequencing

It decides

A evidence preservation finding ranked by blast radius

You verify

Re-attempt the exploit path after remediation

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. Trust boundaries and every point where untrusted input crosses one.
  2. Where authorization is enforced relative to where data is accessed.
  3. Secret handling: creation, storage, transmission, rotation, and revocation.
  4. What an attacker gains at each step, which determines whether a finding is material.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Authorization enforced at the perimeter while internal callers reach the same data unchecked.
  • A single unparameterized query path among many parameterized ones.
  • Sensitive values written to logs or error responses.
  • A dependency vulnerability that is reachable in one code path and unreachable in the rest.

Answers it will reject

  • Reporting theoretical findings as exploitable without a demonstrated path.
  • Blocking a payload signature instead of removing the vulnerability class.
  • Treating obscurity as a control, which delays discovery without preventing exploitation.

Decision rules it applies

  • Prioritize by reachability and blast radius, not by scanner severity.
  • Fail closed on any ambiguity in an access decision.
  • Prefer eliminating the capability over sanitizing input into it.

Evidence it asks for

  • Trace input to sink and name every file and function on the path.
  • Verify the fix by attempting the original exploit path.
  • Check logs for prior exploitation before closing a finding.

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 Agent Skills
  • Cursor Agent Skills
  • Claude Code Skills
  • OpenAI Codex Skills
  • JetBrains Junie Skills

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.