code-review
Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".
- License 许可
- AGPL-3.0
- 所属仓库
- Vortex375/seraph
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-08
- Stars
- ★ 2
- Forks
- 0
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- conducting-post-incident-lessons-learned
- tags
- [ "incident-response", "lessons-learned", "post-incident", "after-action-review", "process-improvement" ]
- author
- mahipal
- domain
- cybersecurity
- license
- Apache-2.0
- version
- 1.0
- nist_csf
- [ "RS.MA-01", "RS.MA-02", "RS.AN-03", "RC.RP-01" ]
- subdomain
- incident-response
- description
- Facilitate structured post-incident reviews to identify root causes, document what worked and failed, and produce actionable recommendations to improve future incident response.
- mitre_attack
- [ "T1566", "T1486", "T1059", "T1078" ]
02 资源文件 8
- 参考文档agents/openai.yaml100 B
- 资产文件assets/template.md2.1 KB
- 许可证LICENSE11.0 KB
- 参考文档references/api-reference.md1.5 KB
- 参考文档references/standards.md1.2 KB
- 参考文档references/workflows.md1.9 KB
- 脚本scripts/agent.py5.7 KB
- 脚本scripts/process.py9.2 KB
03 SKILL.md 正文
Conducting Post-Incident Lessons Learned
When to Use
- After any security incident has been fully resolved and recovery completed
- Following tabletop exercises or IR simulations
- After significant near-miss events
- Quarterly review of accumulated incident trends
- When IR playbooks need updating based on real-world experience
Prerequisites
- Incident fully resolved (containment, eradication, recovery complete)
- Incident timeline and documentation gathered
- All incident responders available for review session
- Meeting space for collaborative discussion
- Incident ticketing system data for metrics analysis
Workflow
Step 1: Gather Incident Data
# Export incident timeline from ticketing system
curl -s "https://thehive.local/api/v1/case/$CASE_ID/timeline" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $THEHIVE_API_KEY" | jq '.' > incident_timeline.json
# Extract detection and response metrics from SIEM
index=notable incident_id="IR-2024-042"
| stats min(_time) as first_alert, max(_time) as last_alert,
count as total_alerts, dc(src) as unique_sources
# Compile all responder actions and timestamps
grep -E "timestamp|action|analyst" /var/log/ir/IR-2024-042/*.json | \
python3 -m json.tool > compiled_actions.json
Step 2: Conduct Blameless Post-Mortem Meeting
Structured Agenda (90 minutes):
1. Incident summary (5 min) - Factual overview
2. Timeline walkthrough (20 min) - Chronological events
3. What worked well (15 min) - Positive outcomes
4. What needs improvement (15 min) - Gaps and failures
5. Root cause analysis (15 min) - 5 Whys or fishbone
6. Action items (10 min) - Specific improvements with owners
7. Playbook updates (10 min) - Changes to IR procedures
Blameless Principles:
- Focus on systems and processes, not individuals
- Assume best intentions with available information
- Seek to understand, not to blame
Step 3: Perform Root Cause Analysis
# 5 Whys analysis example:
# Why 1: Why did ransomware encrypt production servers?
# Answer: Attacker had domain admin credentials
# Why 2: Why did attacker have domain admin credentials?
# Answer: Kerberoasted a service account and cracked it
# Why 3: Why was the service account password crackable?
# Answer: Used a 12-character dictionary-based password
# Why 4: Why was the service account password weak?
# Answer: No enforcement of service account password policy
# Why 5: Why was there no service account password policy?
# Answer: PAM was not implemented for service accounts
# ROOT CAUSE: Lack of privileged access management
Step 4: Calculate Response Metrics
from datetime import datetime
events = {
'compromise': '2024-01-10 14:00:00',
'detection': '2024-01-15 08:30:00',
'triage': '2024-01-15 08:45:00',
'containment': '2024-01-15 09:30:00',
'eradication': '2024-01-16 14:00:00',
'recovery': '2024-01-18 16:00:00',
'closure': '2024-01-25 10:00:00',
}
fmt = '%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S'
times = {k: datetime.strptime(v, fmt) for k, v in events.items()}
print(f"Dwell Time: {times['detection'] - times['compromise']}")
print(f"MTTD: {times['triage'] - times['detection']}")
print(f"MTTC: {times['containment'] - times['detection']}")
print(f"MTTR: {times['recovery'] - times['eradication']}")
print(f"Total Duration: {times['closure'] - times['detection']}")
Step 5: Document Findings and Create Action Items
# Create tracked action items in project management
curl -X POST "https://jira.local/rest/api/2/issue" \
-H "Authorization: Bearer $JIRA_TOKEN" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"fields": {
"project": {"key": "SEC"},
"summary": "Implement PAM for service accounts (IR-2024-042)",
"issuetype": {"name": "Task"},
"priority": {"name": "High"},
"assignee": {"name": "security_engineer"},
"duedate": "2024-03-15"
}
}'
Step 6: Update Playbooks and Detection Rules
# New Sigma detection rule based on incident learnings
title: Kerberoasting Activity Detected
status: stable
description: Detects Kerberoasting based on IR-2024-042 lessons
logsource:
product: windows
service: security
detection:
selection:
EventID: 4769
TicketEncryptionType: '0x17'
condition: selection
level: high
tags:
- attack.credential_access
- attack.t1558.003
Key Concepts
| Concept | Description |
|---|---|
| Blameless Post-Mortem | Reviewing incidents focusing on systems, not blaming individuals |
| Root Cause Analysis | Identifying the fundamental reason the incident occurred |
| 5 Whys | Iterative questioning technique to find root cause |
| MTTD | Mean Time to Detect - time from compromise to detection |
| MTTC | Mean Time to Contain - time from detection to containment |
| MTTR | Mean Time to Recover - time from eradication to full recovery |
| Continuous Improvement | Iterating on IR processes based on real incident data |
Tools & Systems
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|---|
| TheHive/ServiceNow | Incident timeline and documentation |
| Jira/Azure DevOps | Action item tracking |
| Confluence/SharePoint | Lessons learned documentation |
| Splunk/Elastic | Incident metrics and detection improvement |
| Sigma | Detection rule development |
Common Scenarios
- Ransomware Post-Mortem: Review entire kill chain from initial access to encryption. Identify detection gaps and backup failures.
- Phishing Campaign Review: Analyze why users clicked, why email filters missed it, and how to improve training.
- Cloud Misconfiguration Incident: Review IaC pipeline, CSPM coverage, and change management process.
- Insider Threat Review: Examine DLP effectiveness, access control gaps, and user monitoring capabilities.
- Third-Party Breach Impact: Review vendor risk assessment process and data sharing agreements.
Output Format
- Post-incident review meeting minutes
- Root cause analysis document
- Incident metrics report (MTTD, MTTC, MTTR)
- Action items list with owners and deadlines
- Updated IR playbooks and detection rules
- Executive summary for leadership
04 同仓库更多 Skills
writing-for-agents
Writing documents for agents. Use when creating or editing skills, or modifying AGENTS.md or CLAUDE.md.
wizard
Generate an interactive bash wizard that walks a human through steps only they can perform. Use when provisioning infrastructure, setting up credentials or CI secrets, walking an unfamiliar third-party dashboard, or running a one-off migration or cutover. Don't invoke this for steps the agent can perform itself.
wayfinder
Plan a huge chunk of work (more than one agent session can hold) as a shared map of decision tickets on your issue tracker, and resolve them one at a time until the way to the destination is clear.
wait-what
Stop. That last message did not land: re-pitch it.
triage
Move issues and external PRs through a state machine of triage roles, categorise, verify, grill if needed, and write agent-ready briefs.
to-tickets
Break a plan, spec, or the current conversation into a set of tracer-bullet tickets, each declaring its blocking edges, published to the configured tracker (edges as text in one file per ticket locally, or native blocking links on a real tracker).