计划执行与检查节点
executing-plans
按既定实施计划完成工作,保持过程检查和反馈。
cs-escalation-brief【效率与协作】Write a structured escalation brief for an at-risk customer account. Use when an account has escalated, when a customer is threatening churn, when a P1 customer issue needs executive attention, or when preparing an internal save play. Produces a crisp escalation brief with account context, timeline, root cause, business impact, and a clear resolution…
独立 GitHub 快照 · 自动分类 · 以原作者文档为准
Produce a clear, concise escalation brief that gives internal stakeholders — VP CS, CCO, product leadership, or the CEO — everything they need to understand the situation, make decisions, and act fast.
A good escalation brief is not a complaint. It is a professional document that states the facts, assigns accountability honestly, and proposes a specific resolution plan.
Ask for these if not already provided:
Calibrate urgency and audience based on escalation level:
| Level | Trigger | Audience | Response time |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1 — Account Risk | Customer expressing dissatisfaction; renewal at risk | CSM + CS Manager | 24 hours |
| L2 — Executive Escalation | Customer escalated to their exec; requesting vendor exec involvement | VP CS + Account Exec | 4 hours |
| L3 — Churn Risk | Customer has issued notice or is in active churn conversation | CCO / CEO + Revenue leadership | 1 hour |
| L4 — Public Risk | Customer threatening public escalation, legal, or press | CCO / Legal / Comms | Immediate |
Escalation level: L[1/2/3/4] — [Label] Date raised: [Date] Raised by: [CSM name] Escalation owner: [Name of exec or senior stakeholder now leading response]
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| ARR | £/$/€[X] |
| Tier | Enterprise / Mid-Market / SMB |
| Customer since | [Date] |
| Renewal date | [Date] — [N] days away |
| Renewal risk (pre-escalation) | Green / Amber / Red |
| Renewal risk (current) | Green / Amber / Red |
| Customer contact who escalated | [Name, role, seniority] |
| Executive sponsor (customer) | [Name, role — active / passive / vacant] |
| Executive sponsor (vendor) | [Name, role] |
[3–5 sentences. State the facts plainly. What the customer experienced, how they reacted, and how we learned about the escalation. No editorialising. No blame.]
List in chronological order. Each entry: [Date / time] — [What happened. Who did what.]
Include:
Primary cause: [One clear sentence. What specifically went wrong.]
Contributing factors:
Is this a systemic issue or isolated? [ ] Isolated to this account [ ] Pattern seen in other accounts — details: [_______] [ ] Product or process gap that needs fixing
What the customer says happened: [Their version of events — fair and unfiltered]
What they are asking for: [Their explicit ask — compensation, fix by date, exec call, SLA credit, exit clause]
Sentiment of escalating contact: [Frustrated but constructive / Angry / Seeking exit / Unknown]
Risk of public escalation: Low / Medium / High — [evidence if Medium or High]
| Impact type | Detail |
|---|---|
| ARR at risk | £/$/€[X] |
| Potential churn probability | [X]% |
| Reputational risk | Low / Medium / High |
| Reference / case study status | [Was a reference — now at risk / Not a reference] |
| Expansion pipeline at risk | £/$/€[X] |
Has a formal apology or acknowledgement been issued? Yes / No
Immediate actions (next 24–48 hours):
| Action | Owner | By when |
|---|---|---|
| [Action] | [Name] | [Date] |
| [Action] | [Name] | [Date] |
Medium-term actions (next 2–4 weeks):
| Action | Owner | By when |
|---|---|---|
| [Action] | [Name] | [Date] |
What we are NOT offering: [Be explicit about what is not on the table — avoids misaligned expectations]
Success criteria: [How will we know the escalation is resolved? What does the customer need to confirm they are satisfied?]
[State clearly what decision or resource the escalation owner needs to provide. Be specific — do not make them ask. E.g.: "We need approval to offer a 20% service credit for Q2" or "We need an exec call with [name] within 48 hours."]
| Audience | Message | Channel | Owner | By when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Escalating customer contact | [Summary of message] | Email / Call | [Name] | [Date] |
| Customer exec sponsor | [Summary] | Call | [Name] | [Date] |
| Internal CS team | [Summary] | Slack / Meeting | CS Manager | [Date] |
This skill ships with support files — use them when they are available:
references/deescalation-sequencing.md — De-escalation Sequencing: the Order of Operations When an Account Is on Fire. Apply it while producing the output; it carries the calibration and judgment calls the method summary above compresses.templates/escalation-brief.md — a fill-in version of the deliverable with the quality gates inline. Offer it when the user wants to work the document themselves rather than have it generated.Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.
| Dimension | 0 | 5 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Root cause specificity & honesty | Vague ("communication breakdown") or pins blame on individuals | Specific cause named, but internal failures are softened or the systemic-vs-isolated question is skipped | Specific primary cause, contributing factors that own internal failures plainly, and an explicit systemic-vs-isolated call |
| Quantified business impact | No ARR figure; churn risk described in adjectives | ARR stated, but churn probability, expansion pipeline, or reference risk left blank | ARR at risk, churn probability, expansion pipeline, and reference/reputational exposure all quantified |
| Fair representation of the customer | Customer's position missing, minimised, or paraphrased into harmlessness | Their ask is stated, but their version of events is filtered or their sentiment unassessed | Their account of events, explicit ask, sentiment, and public-escalation risk stated fairly and unfiltered |
| Decision-readiness of the plan | No clear ask; brief ends with "what do you think?"; owners TBD | Plan exists but the decision needed is implicit, or some actions lack owners and dates | A specific decision is requested from the escalation owner; every action has an owner and date; what we are NOT offering and success criteria are explicit |