Claude Code Ship: Incident Follow-Up

What this prompt does

Turn an incident into durable engineering actions with repository-aware safeguards. It is designed for incident follow-up and works best with Current Claude Code model configured for the repository.

Customize and copy

This is a reusable natural-language prompt for Claude Code, not a shell command.

Work in the repository at [REPOSITORY_OR_PATH]. Goal: turn an incident into durable engineering actions. Context: [CONTEXT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Definition of done: [ACCEPTANCE_CRITERIA].

Run relevant checks, summarize the diff, call out risks and rollback, and prepare reviewer-facing notes.

Read applicable CLAUDE.md guidance and use Claude Code’s repository tools and permission model; do not assume an interactive slash command or CLI flag is available.

First read the repository instructions and relevant framework documentation. Preserve unrelated user changes. State assumptions, cite files and lines for findings, and ask only when a missing decision would materially change the result. Do not invent APIs, commands, flags, test results, or file contents. Deliver: timeline, contributing factors, fixes, and prevention. Run the repository’s relevant formatting, lint, type, test, and build checks when authorized, and report exact results.

How to use it

Replace the bracketed variables with real context for incident follow-up. Attach or paste source material when available, and verify consequential facts before acting.

Example input

Provide a real incident follow-up brief with the audience, goal, constraints, preferred format, and any available source material filled into the prompt’s placeholders.

Sample output

Turn an incident into durable engineering actions with repository-aware safeguards. The finished response should apply that result to incident follow-up, follow the requested structure, distinguish supplied facts from inference, and end with usable next actions.

Quality checklist

• The response directly addresses the incident follow-up goal and intended audience.
• Every requested section or output format is present and materially complete.
• Unsupported facts are removed, sourced, or clearly marked for verification.
• The final result is specific enough to use without guessing what happens next.

Limitations and review notes

Run generated code in an isolated branch, review the diff, and execute the repository test suite before merging.

This page records an editorial structure and safety review, not a guarantee that every provider or model version will produce the same result. See the Promptle testing methodology.

Related prompts