Incident Alert Tickets

Incident Alert Tickets

Incident-alert tickets turn on-call debugging into searchable knowledge: one Linear ticket per production alert/monitor, one dated section per distinct root cause. This skill owns lookup, comparison, and the human-gated write-back; calling skills own the investigation itself. The team SOP is the Linear document titled "Incident Alert Tickets".

When to Apply

Apply whenever the task is anchored to an alert identity:

• a Datadog monitor ID or title,
• an incident.io alert or INC reference,
• an on-call page ("we got paged for X").

Do not try to detect "incident mode" — the presence of a named alert is the condition, because the monitor is the ticket key. When an alert identity is present, the lookup is mandatory; recording is offered after the investigation and gated on human approval. A customer report or code question with no alert identity skips this skill.

When multiple alerts fire together (a cascade), run lookup, compare, and classify for each alert identity — every monitor has its own ticket. If one root cause explains several alerts, write the full cause section on the monitor closest to the cause and propose a short dated section on the other monitors' tickets that links to it.

Ticket Contract

• One ticket per monitor (per env when monitors are per-env), titled [ENV] <Monitor title>, in the Engineering (LFE) team, carrying the incident-alert label. The label set is the knowledge base.

• Regional twins of one monitor (same metric and threshold per env) may share a single ticket titled [ENV1/ENV2] <Monitor title> when the causes are region-independent; list each env's monitor ID in the alert header.

• The description opens with an alert header: monitor ID, trigger condition, and how it surfaces (incident.io urgency, auto-resolve behavior).

• One dated section per distinct root cause, separated by ---:

  ## YYYY-MM-DD — <short cause name>
  
  **Recognize it:** <signals that identify this cause: log patterns, span
  filters, metric shapes, affected routes>
  
  **How urgent?** <impact, auto-recovery behavior, escalation threshold>
  
  **Fix:** <positive actions only — every "do not X" needs a working
  alternative; verified levers, not speculation>
  

• Cause sections are append-only: never rewrite or delete an existing section; new knowledge gets a new dated block.

• The description ends with a ## Your cause is not listed? trailer: it records firings that were never root-caused and tells the next engineer to insert new dated sections above it, in the same format.

• Keep each cause section to roughly one screen.

• A distinct problem discovered during the investigation that is not a cause of this alert gets its own ticket (bug or incident-alert), cross-linked — do not mix it into this ticket's cause sections.

Lookup

1. List Linear issues carrying the incident-alert label.
2. Match on monitor ID first (tickets carry it in the alert header), then on monitor title and env.
3. Read the matched ticket's cause sections and comments.

Compare and Classify

Compare the current evidence against each cause section's "Recognize it" signals and classify:

• Known cause — a section matches. Cite the ticket and section in the analysis; its "Fix" is the starting recommendation. This may end the investigation before any Datadog sweep.
• New cause on existing ticket — the monitor has a ticket but no section matches the evidence. Propose appending a dated section.
• No ticket — no ticket matches the monitor. Propose creating one, and file it once that is approved.

Treat a partial match — some "Recognize it" signals fit, others do not — as a new cause, never as a known one: do not recommend a documented "Fix" whose recognition signals only partially match. Name the near-miss section in the proposed ticket so the human can judge the overlap.

Write-Back

Appending a cause section to a ticket that already exists is a description edit; creating a monitor with no ticket is a parentless create. Both need a yes — see linear-agent-writes and read it before your first write.

• Append: show it, then do it. Prepare the new ----separated dated block (insert after the existing cause sections, above the Your cause is not listed? trailer; leave everything else untouched). Mark the block as agent-written in its own text. Put it in the go-ahead table; once approved, append it and label the ticket AI edited. Never reflow or rewrite the human-written prose around it.
• Create: show it, then file it. Prepare the issue — title [ENV] <Monitor title>, the incident-alert label, description = alert header, the first dated cause section, and the Your cause is not listed? trailer — show it for a go-ahead, and once you have one, create it yourself and label it AI created.

One go-ahead covers the whole run — appends and creates together. Asking per row is worse than the pasting this replaced.

Report what you did either way:

• Action: appended to <key> (AI edited), awaiting your go-ahead, filed <key> (AI created), or none (known cause).
• Content: the dated section, or the full ticket body exactly as it will be filed — that text is what the go-ahead is given against.

If Linear is unreachable in this environment, say so and return every row as text ready to paste rather than skipping the write-back silently.

Division of Labor

• linear-bug-triage owns bug deduplication and creation from measured evidence. Incident-alert tickets are per-monitor runbook knowledge, not defect reports.
• An alert whose root cause is a code bug gets both: the cause section documents recognition and mitigation, and links the bug ticket that tracks the durable fix.