escalate-issues

When to Use

Use this skill when a maintenance task encounters problems beyond automated cleanup:

• Uncertain whether code is safe to delete
• Configuration changes require domain expertise (security, performance, architecture)
• Breaking changes detected during cleanup
• Complex refactoring needed (not just cleanup)
• Security-sensitive findings (hardcoded secrets, vulnerabilities)

Do NOT use for simple issues with clear fixes. Escalate only when automated cleanup is risky or insufficient.

Inputs

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
issue_description	string	Yes	Clear description of the problem
severity	enum	Yes	critical, high, medium, low
context_files	array	No	Paths to relevant files
specialist	string	No	Target agent (auto-route if not specified)
blocking	boolean	No	Whether issue blocks further cleanup (default: false)

Procedure

Step 1: Assess Severity

Classify the issue using standard severity levels.

CRITICAL — Blocks production functionality:

• Broken imports in actively used code
• Security vulnerabilities (exposed secrets, SQL injection)
• Data loss risk from cleanup operation
• Production service outages

HIGH — Impacts maintainability or developer productivity:

• Significant dead code bloat (>1000 lines)
• Broken CI/CD pipelines
• Major configuration drift between environments
• Unreferenced modules that might be dynamically loaded

MEDIUM — Minor hygiene issues:

• Unused helper functions (<100 lines)
• Stale documentation requiring updates
• Deprecated config files (no longer used but present)
• Lint warnings in non-critical paths

LOW — Style inconsistencies:

• Mixed indentation (works but inconsistent)
• Trailing whitespace
• Inconsistent naming (camelCase vs snake_case)
• Minor formatting differences

Severity Decision Tree:

Does it break production? → CRITICAL
Does it block development? → HIGH
Does it impact code quality? → MEDIUM
Is it purely cosmetic? → LOW

Got: Issue classified with clear severity label

If fail: If uncertain, default to HIGH and escalate to human for re-triage

Step 2: Document Finding

Capture all relevant context for the specialist to review.

Issue Report Template:

# Issue: [Brief Title]

**Severity**: CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
**Discovered During**: [Skill name, e.g., clean-codebase]
**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**Blocking**: Yes | No

## Description

Clear description of the problem in 2-3 sentences.

## Context

- **File(s)**: [List of affected files with line numbers]
- **Related**: [Related issues, commits, or previous attempts to fix]
- **Impact**: [What breaks if this isn't fixed, or what's wasted if not cleaned]

## Evidence

```language
# Code snippet or log excerpt showing the problem

Attempted Fixes

• Tried X but failed because Y
• Considered Z but uncertain due to W

Recommendation

• Option 1: [Safe conservative approach]
• Option 2: [More aggressive fix with risks]
• Preferred: [Which option to pursue and why]

Specialist Routing

Suggested Agent: [agent-name] Reason: [Why this specialist is appropriate]

References

• [Link to related documentation]
• [Link to similar past issues]

**Got:** Issue documented with full context in `ESCALATION_REPORTS/issue_YYYYMMDD_HHMM.md`

**If fail:** (N/A — always document, even if incomplete)

### Step 3: Determine Routing

Match issue type to appropriate specialist agent or human reviewer.

**Routing Table**:

| Issue Type | Specialist | Reason |
|------------|-----------|---------|
| Security vulnerability | security-analyst | Security expertise required |
| GxP compliance concern | gxp-validator | Regulatory knowledge needed |
| Architecture decision | senior-software-developer | Design pattern expertise |
| Config management | devops-engineer | Infrastructure knowledge |
| Dependency conflicts | devops-engineer | Package management expertise |
| Performance bottleneck | senior-data-scientist | Optimization knowledge |
| Code style dispute | code-reviewer | Style guide authority |
| Dead code uncertainty | r-developer (or lang-specific) | Language-specific knowledge |
| Broken test unclear | code-reviewer | Test design expertise |
| Documentation accuracy | senior-researcher | Domain knowledge required |
| License compatibility | auditor | Legal/compliance expertise |

**Automatic Routing Logic**:
```python
def route_issue(severity, issue_type):
    if severity == "CRITICAL":
        # Always escalate to human for critical issues
        return "human"

    if "security" in issue_type or "secret" in issue_type:
        return "security-analyst"

    if "gxp" in issue_type or "compliance" in issue_type:
        return "gxp-validator"

    if "architecture" in issue_type or "design" in issue_type:
        return "senior-software-developer"

    if "config" in issue_type or "deployment" in issue_type:
        return "devops-engineer"

    # Default: code-reviewer for general code issues
    return "code-reviewer"

Got: Issue routed to appropriate specialist with justification

If fail: If no clear specialist, escalate to human for manual routing

Step 4: Create Actionable Issue Report

Generate a formatted report suitable for the target audience (agent or human).

For Specialist Agents (structured format for MCP tools):

---
type: escalation
severity: high
from_agent: janitor
to_agent: security-analyst
blocking: false
---

# Security Concern: Hardcoded API Key in Config

**File**: config/production.yml:45
**Pattern**: API_KEY="sk_live_abc123..."

**Request**: Please review if this is a valid secret or a placeholder.
If valid, recommend secure credential management strategy.

**Context**: Discovered during config cleanup sweep.

For Human Reviewers (detailed markdown):

# Escalation Report: Uncertain Dead Code Removal

**From**: Janitor Agent
**Date**: 2026-02-16
**Severity**: HIGH

## Problem

File `src/legacy_payments.js` (450 lines) appears unused but contains
complex payment processing logic. Static analysis shows zero references,
but name suggests business-critical functionality.

## Why Escalated

- Uncertain if payment code is dynamically loaded at runtime
- Potential data loss risk if deleted incorrectly
- Requires domain knowledge to assess business impact

## Evidence

- No direct imports found
- Last modified 8 months ago
- Git history shows it was part of payment refactor

## Recommendation

Request human review before deletion. If confirmed dead:
1. Archive to archive/legacy/ directory
2. Document in ARCHIVE_LOG.md
3. Create ticket to verify payment flows still work

## Next Steps

Awaiting human confirmation before proceeding with cleanup.

Got: Report formatted appropriately for target audience

If fail: (N/A — generate report in generic markdown if uncertain)

Step 5: Track Escalation Status

Maintain a log of all escalations to prevent duplicate reports.

# Escalation Log

| ID | Date | Severity | Issue | Specialist | Status |
|----|------|----------|-------|-----------|--------|
| ESC-001 | 2026-02-16 | CRITICAL | Broken prod import | human | Resolved |
| ESC-002 | 2026-02-16 | HIGH | Dead payment code | human | Pending |
| ESC-003 | 2026-02-16 | MEDIUM | Config drift | devops-engineer | In Progress |

Got: ESCALATION_LOG.md updated with new entry

If fail: If log doesn't exist, create it

Step 6: Notify and Block (If Required)

If issue is blocking further maintenance, notify and pause cleanup.

Blocking Logic:

• CRITICAL issues always block
• HIGH issues block if in critical path
• MEDIUM/LOW issues do not block

Notification:

⚠️ MAINTENANCE BLOCKED ⚠️

Issue ESC-002 (HIGH severity) requires human review before proceeding.

**Affected Operation**: clean-codebase (Step 5: Remove Dead Code)
**Reason**: Uncertain if src/legacy_payments.js is truly dead

**Action Required**: Review ESCALATION_REPORTS/ESC-002_2026-02-16.md

Once resolved, re-run maintenance from Step 5.

Got: Maintenance paused; clear notification generated

If fail: If notification mechanism unavailable, document in report

Validation Checklist

After escalation:

• Issue severity correctly assessed
• Full context documented (files, evidence, attempts)
• Appropriate specialist identified
• Escalation report created in ESCALATION_REPORTS/
• ESCALATION_LOG.md updated
• Blocking status communicated if applicable
• No sensitive information exposed in report

Pitfalls

1. Over-Escalating: Escalating simple issues wastes specialist time. Only escalate when truly uncertain or risky.

2. Under-Escalating: Deleting code "just to see if tests pass" without escalation can cause production outages.

3. Insufficient Context: Escalating without evidence forces specialists to re-investigate. Include file paths, line numbers, error messages.

4. Vague Descriptions: "Something's wrong with config" is not actionable. Be specific: "Config drift: dev uses API v1, prod uses v2".

5. Not Tracking Status: Re-escalating already-reviewed issues. Check ESCALATION_LOG.md first.

6. Exposing Secrets: Including actual API keys or passwords in escalation reports. Redact sensitive values.

Related Skills

• clean-codebase — Often triggers escalations when uncertain
• tidy-project-structure — May discover complex organizational issues
• repair-broken-references — Escalate when unclear if reference should be fixed or removed
• compliance/security-scan — Escalate security findings
• general/issue-triage — General issue classification patterns