I built AutoBrief after noticing that resolving incidents wasn’t the longest part — writing about them was.
After every incident we would write:
• An engineering postmortem
• An executive summary
• A status page update
• Runbook changes
Same incident, multiple documents.
AutoBrief lets you fill out one structured form (timeline, impact, root cause, mitigation, uncertainties) and generates tailored drafts for each audience.
A few design decisions:
• Sensitive fields encrypted at the application layer
• Workspace isolation using Postgres RLS
• Incident data is not used to train AI models
• Meant as a draft accelerator, not a replacement for review
Stack:
Next.js 15, Supabase (Postgres + RLS), Claude API, deployed on Vercel.
I’d especially appreciate feedback from engineers who run incident reviews.
Would this reduce overhead in your workflow, or just add another tool?
I built AutoBrief after noticing that resolving incidents wasn’t the longest part — writing about them was.
After every incident we would write: • An engineering postmortem • An executive summary • A status page update • Runbook changes
Same incident, multiple documents.
AutoBrief lets you fill out one structured form (timeline, impact, root cause, mitigation, uncertainties) and generates tailored drafts for each audience.
A few design decisions: • Sensitive fields encrypted at the application layer • Workspace isolation using Postgres RLS • Incident data is not used to train AI models • Meant as a draft accelerator, not a replacement for review
Stack: Next.js 15, Supabase (Postgres + RLS), Claude API, deployed on Vercel.
I’d especially appreciate feedback from engineers who run incident reviews. Would this reduce overhead in your workflow, or just add another tool?