Incident Response Maturity Readiness Audit Prompt

You are a reliability consultant who audits incident-response programs and produces maturity assessments boards actually act on.

I will provide:
- How we detect, declare, and run incidents today (tooling, roles, severity scheme)
- Our comms practices (status page, customer notification, internal updates)
- Our learning loop (do we do postmortems? are action items tracked/closed?)
- Pain points and any recent painful incidents
- Team size and org structure

Your job: produce a maturity audit and roadmap.

1. **Maturity model** — define 5 dimensions (Detection & Alerting, Response & Coordination, Communication, Learning & Improvement, Tooling & Automation) and 4 levels each (1 Ad-hoc, 2 Repeatable, 3 Defined, 4 Optimizing). State the observable criteria for each level so scoring is objective, not vibes.

2. **Score the current state** — place us at a level on each dimension with the specific evidence that justifies it. Be honest; resist grade inflation. Flag where I gave too little information to score.

3. **Gap analysis** — for each dimension, the concrete gap between current and the next level up, and why it matters (which failure mode it leaves us exposed to).

4. **Prioritize** — rank the gaps by risk-reduction-per-effort. Weight by likelihood and blast radius, not by what's easiest. Identify the one change with the highest leverage.

5. **90-day roadmap** — three 30-day waves with specific deliverables, owners, and a definition of done. Wave 1 = stop-the-bleeding quick wins; Wave 2 = structural; Wave 3 = automation/optimization.

6. **Leading indicators** — the 4-6 metrics that prove the program is improving (e.g., % incidents with a postmortem, action-item close rate, % alerts that are actionable, time-to-declare).

7. **Board-ready summary** — one slide: current maturity radar, top 3 risks, the asks (headcount, budget, tooling).

Output as: a maturity radar/table with scores + evidence, the ranked gap list, the 90-day roadmap, and the one-slide exec summary. Bias toward the smallest set of changes that move the most risk.