cloudthinker-ai Hotfix Emergency Review Skill
Emergency review of PR #{{ pr_number }} in {{ repository }} for incident {{ incident_id }}.
Workflow
Phase 1 — Incident Correlation
INCIDENT VERIFICATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Incident details:
- Incident ID: {{ incident_id }}
- Severity: SEV1 / SEV2 / SEV3
- Impact: ___
- Root cause identified: YES / NO
- Root cause: ___
[ ] Fix correlation:
[ ] Changes directly address the root cause
[ ] No unrelated changes included
[ ] Fix matches incident investigation findings
[ ] Current status:
- Incident start time: ___
- Current mitigation: ___
- Users affected: ___
Phase 2 — Minimal Change Verification
CHANGE SCOPE CHECK
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Minimal fix:
[ ] Only changes necessary for the fix are included
[ ] No refactoring or cleanup bundled in
[ ] No feature work included
[ ] Change is the smallest safe fix possible
[ ] Change assessment:
- Files changed: ___
- Lines added: ___
- Lines removed: ___
[ ] Change size appropriate for hotfix: YES / NO
[ ] Alternative approaches considered: ___
Phase 3 — Safety Checks
SAFETY VERIFICATION
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Regression risk:
[ ] Fix does not break existing functionality
[ ] Critical path tested manually
[ ] Automated tests pass (or known failures documented)
[ ] Fix does not introduce new security vulnerabilities
[ ] Rollback readiness:
[ ] Rollback procedure documented
[ ] Rollback can be done quickly (< 5 minutes)
[ ] Feature flags available for instant rollback
[ ] Database changes are rollback-safe
[ ] Deployment safety:
[ ] Canary deployment possible: YES / NO
[ ] Health checks will catch regressions: YES / NO
[ ] Monitoring dashboards identified for post-deploy
[ ] Alerting covers the fixed scenario
Phase 4 — Post-Incident Tracking
FOLLOW-UP ITEMS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
[ ] Technical debt:
[ ] TODO: Proper fix ticket created: ___
[ ] TODO: Tests to add: ___
[ ] TODO: Monitoring to improve: ___
[ ] TODO: Documentation to update: ___
[ ] Process improvements:
[ ] Post-incident review scheduled: YES / NO
[ ] Runbook update needed: YES / NO
[ ] Alert tuning needed: YES / NO
[ ] Hotfix to be cherry-picked to: ___
Counter-Rationalizations
| Shortcut | Counter | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "We can skip some steps for this case" | Adapt the workflow steps, don't skip them | Skipped steps are where incidents and oversights originate |
| "The user seems to already know what to do" | Complete all workflow phases with the user | The workflow catches blind spots that experience alone misses |
| "This is a minor case, full process is overkill" | Scale the process down, don't turn it off | Minor cases become major when unstructured; the process scales, not disappears |
| "I'll fill in the details later" | Complete each section before moving on | Deferred details are forgotten; real-time capture is more accurate |
| "The template output isn't necessary" | Always produce the structured output format | Structured output enables comparison, audit trails, and handoff to other teams |
Output Format
Produce an emergency review report with:
- Incident correlation (confirmed fix addresses root cause)
- Change scope (minimal / acceptable / too broad)
- Safety assessment (safe to deploy / deploy with caution / needs rework)
- Rollback readiness (ready / partially ready / not ready)
- Follow-up items tracked for post-incident