Agent crisis communications
Under pressure, communication goes wrong in predictable ways: too slow,
too vague, or committing to a cause before it is known. Agents can
compress the assembly and drafting time dramatically while a human keeps
the judgement and the voice.
Team
- Fact assembler (
agent-incident-response-team): establishes what
is known, unknown, and confirmed as of a timestamp.
- Drafter (
incident-status-update): produces the holding
statement and channel variants.
- Claims checker: removes anything not yet supported, especially
cause and timeline.
Shape: a fast loop repeating as facts change, gated on a human every
cycle.
Method
- Separate known, unknown, and unconfirmed explicitly. Nearly every
damaging crisis statement is an unconfirmed item stated as fact.
- Publish a holding statement early. Acknowledging the issue,
impact, and next update time beats silence, and silence is read as
either incompetence or concealment.
- Never state cause before it is established. Speculation that
turns out wrong costs more trust than the original incident (see
agent-postmortem-council).
- Commit only to the next update time. Timelines for resolution
given under pressure are usually wrong and become the story.
- Keep every channel consistent. Status page, email, social, and
support macros must say the same thing, since discrepancies read as
evasion.
- Re-run the loop as facts change. Each update is a fresh pass
through assembly, drafting, and checking rather than an edit of the
last one.
- Write the follow-up honestly once resolved. What happened, what
was affected, what changes, without minimising language.
Run it
In Claude Code, run the assembler over incident data into a facts file
with confidence marked per item, then the drafter, then the claims
checker, producing a statement a human approves before any channel is
touched. Repeat per update. Port to LangGraph as a cycle with a human
approval interrupt on every iteration.
Signals it works
- Statements distinguish confirmed facts from unknowns explicitly.
- Every update names when the next one comes, and it arrives.
- Cause appears only after it is established.
Boundaries
Agents assemble and draft; a human speaks and owns every word published.
Never let an agent post directly. Incidents involving personal data,
safety, or regulated services carry notification obligations with legal
deadlines and need counsel immediately (see pii-handling). Apologies and
liability statements have legal consequences.
1---2name: agent-crisis-comms3description: Prepare public communication during an incident with agents that assemble facts, draft holding statements, and check for claims that cannot be supported, while a human speaks. Use when something has gone wrong publicly and the response must be fast and accurate.4---56# Agent crisis communications78Under pressure, communication goes wrong in predictable ways: too slow,9too vague, or committing to a cause before it is known. Agents can10compress the assembly and drafting time dramatically while a human keeps11the judgement and the voice.1213## Team1415- **Fact assembler** (`agent-incident-response-team`): establishes what16 is known, unknown, and confirmed as of a timestamp.17- **Drafter** (`incident-status-update`): produces the holding18 statement and channel variants.19- **Claims checker**: removes anything not yet supported, especially20 cause and timeline.2122Shape: a fast loop repeating as facts change, gated on a human every23cycle.2425## Method26271. **Separate known, unknown, and unconfirmed explicitly.** Nearly every28 damaging crisis statement is an unconfirmed item stated as fact.292. **Publish a holding statement early.** Acknowledging the issue,30 impact, and next update time beats silence, and silence is read as31 either incompetence or concealment.323. **Never state cause before it is established.** Speculation that33 turns out wrong costs more trust than the original incident (see34 agent-postmortem-council).354. **Commit only to the next update time.** Timelines for resolution36 given under pressure are usually wrong and become the story.375. **Keep every channel consistent.** Status page, email, social, and38 support macros must say the same thing, since discrepancies read as39 evasion.406. **Re-run the loop as facts change.** Each update is a fresh pass41 through assembly, drafting, and checking rather than an edit of the42 last one.437. **Write the follow-up honestly once resolved.** What happened, what44 was affected, what changes, without minimising language.4546## Run it4748In Claude Code, run the assembler over incident data into a facts file49with confidence marked per item, then the drafter, then the claims50checker, producing a statement a human approves before any channel is51touched. Repeat per update. Port to LangGraph as a cycle with a human52approval interrupt on every iteration.5354## Signals it works5556- Statements distinguish confirmed facts from unknowns explicitly.57- Every update names when the next one comes, and it arrives.58- Cause appears only after it is established.5960## Boundaries6162Agents assemble and draft; a human speaks and owns every word published.63Never let an agent post directly. Incidents involving personal data,64safety, or regulated services carry notification obligations with legal65deadlines and need counsel immediately (see pii-handling). Apologies and66liability statements have legal consequences.