incident-public-statement

Incident Public Statement Skill

A public statement is judged in seconds: does it acknowledge the problem, take responsibility, and tell people what to do? This skill writes that statement — honest, human, and specific — avoiding both the legalese that reads as evasion and the over-promising that creates the next problem. (Need the whole coordinated response, not just the statement? Use pr-crisis-response.)

Working from a brief

Given a one-line incident description, produce the full statement anyway — infer the likely impact and next steps, label assumptions, and clearly bracket only the genuinely incident-specific facts the user must confirm before publishing (numbers, dates, scope). Never refuse for missing detail; flag legally sensitive claims for review.

Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided (else infer and label):

• What happened — the incident, when it started/was discovered, and current status.
• Who's affected and how — scope and the concrete impact on them.
• What you're doing — the response so far and what's next.
• What affected people should do — the specific action (reset password, watch for X, no action needed).
• Voice & constraints — tone, and anything legal/regulatory you can't yet say.

Output Format

Public Statement: [incident]

Statement (publish-ready) — in this order:

1. Acknowledge — name the issue plainly in the first sentence; don't bury it.
2. What happened — a brief, factual account (confirmed only); say what's still being investigated.
3. Impact — who/what is affected, specifically and honestly.
4. What we're doing — the actions taken and underway, with accountability (no blame-shifting).
5. What you should do — the clear next step for affected people, or "no action needed" if true.
6. Our commitment — that you'll share an update by a stated time, and how to get help/contact.

Then provide:

• Short version — 2–3 sentences for social / status page / SMS.
• Notes — bracketed facts to confirm before publishing, and any line flagged for legal review.

Quality Checks

• The first sentence acknowledges the issue directly — no warm-up, no burying
• Only confirmed facts are stated; open items are named as "under investigation"
• It takes responsibility without speculating on cause or shifting blame
• Affected people get a clear, specific action (or an honest "no action needed")
• It commits to a next update by a stated time
• Both a full and a short version are provided; sensitive claims flagged for review

Anti-Patterns

• Do not open with self-congratulation or context-setting — lead with the acknowledgement
• Do not use evasive legalese ("issues may have impacted some users") when you can be specific
• Do not speculate on cause or promise outcomes you can't guarantee
• Do not state numbers/scope you haven't confirmed — bracket them for confirmation
• Do not omit what the reader should actually do next

Based On

Incident communication practice — prompt acknowledgement, factual transparency, accountability, and clear guidance for affected people.