Runbook: Create Investigation Report

Runbook: Create Investigation Report#

Objective#

Consolidate findings from a completed or ongoing investigation involving various security tools (e.g., SecOps SIEM/SOAR, GTI, SCC, Okta, Crowdstrike) into a comprehensive report suitable for stakeholders or post-incident review. This runbook focuses on the reporting process itself, assuming the core investigation steps have largely been completed.

Scope#

  • In Scope: Gathering case context, synthesizing existing findings (from case details, comments, or provided summaries), structuring the report according to templates, generating the report file, attempting to attach it to the SOAR case (with fallback), and optionally handling external uploads.

  • Out of Scope: Performing the primary investigation itself (this runbook reports on an investigation), deep forensic analysis, executing containment/remediation actions.

Inputs#

  • ${CASE_ID} (Mandatory): The SOAR case ID for which the report is being generated.

  • (Optional) ${ALERT_GROUP_IDENTIFIERS}: Relevant alert group identifiers if needed for specific SOAR actions.

  • (Optional) ${INVESTIGATION_SUMMARY}: Pre-existing summary of findings if available.

  • (Optional) ${KEY_ENTITIES}: List of key entities (users, hosts, IOCs) that were the focus of the investigation.

  • (Optional) ${INCLUDE_TOOLS}: List of tools whose findings should be summarized (e.g., [“SIEM”, “GTI”, “Okta”]).

  • (Optional) ${REPORT_FILENAME_SUFFIX}: A suffix for the report filename (defaults to ${CASE_ID}).

Tools#

Required for Reporting Workflow:

  • secops-soar: get_case_full_details, post_case_comment

  • write_report

  • You may ask follow up question

Summarized From (Examples - Actual tools depend on the investigation):

  • secops-mcp: lookup_entity, search_security_events

  • gti-mcp: Various get_*_report tools

  • scc-mcp: search_scc_findings

  • okta-mcp: lookup_okta_user

  • crowdstrike-mcp: get_host_details

Conceptual/Optional (Availability Varies):

  • secops-soar: siemplify_add_attachment_to_case (or similar attachment tool)

  • google-drive-mcp: upload_to_drive

  • gcs-mcp: upload_to_gcs

Workflow Steps#

  1. Gather Case Context & Identify Key Entities: Retrieve full details for ${CASE_ID} using soar-mcp_get_case_full_details. Extract relevant alerts, comments, existing entities, priority/status, and explicitly identify the key entities/IOCs that are central to the investigation based on this initial context.

  2. Synthesize Findings: Combine information from Step 1 with optional inputs (${INVESTIGATION_SUMMARY}, ${KEY_ENTITIES}, ${INCLUDE_TOOLS}). Review case comments and alert details to reconstruct the investigation narrative and key findings.

    • Note on Tool Limitations: Be aware that direct searches for specific artifacts (like event IDs) or lookups for certain entity types (like hostnames without full paths) might fail or return limited information. If primary methods fail, adapt the investigation by using alternative approaches, such as searching SIEM logs based on related entities (IPs, users) and relevant timeframes, or performing broader lookups.

  3. Structure Report: Organize the synthesized information according to standard templates. Refer to rules-bank/reporting_templates.md and rules-bank/run_books/guidelines/runbook_guidelines.md. Key sections should include: Executive Summary, Investigation Timeline (high-level), Involved Entities & Enrichment Summary, Analysis/Root Cause (if determined), Actions Taken (summary), Recommendations/Lessons Learned.

  4. Generate Mermaid Diagram: Create a Mermaid sequence diagram summarizing the actual investigation workflow performed for this case, including any alternative steps taken or tool failures encountered. The diagram should reflect reality, not just the ideal path.

  5. Manual Review & Redaction: CRITICAL STEP: Prompt the analyst to review the drafted report content for accuracy and to manually redact or defang any sensitive data (e.g., PII, internal hostnames if required, specific credentials) before proceeding. You may ask follow up question to get confirmation that redaction is complete.

  6. Format Final Report: Compile the reviewed/redacted information and the Mermaid diagram into the final Markdown report content (let this be ${FINAL_REPORT_CONTENT}).

  7. Write Report File: Construct ${REPORT_NAME} (e.g., investigation_report_${CASE_ID}.md or investigation_report_${REPORT_FILENAME_SUFFIX}.md if provided, ensuring a .md extension). Execute common_steps/generate_report_file.md with REPORT_CONTENTS=${FINAL_REPORT_CONTENT} and REPORT_NAME=${REPORT_NAME}. Obtain ${REPORT_FILE_PATH} and ${WRITE_STATUS}.

  8. Attempt SOAR Attachment:

    • (If siemplify_add_attachment_to_case or similar tool exists) Attempt to attach the generated file (${REPORT_FILE_PATH}) to the SOAR case ${CASE_ID}.

    • If Attachment Fails or Tool Unavailable: Execute common_steps/document_in_soar.md with ${CASE_ID} and COMMENT_TEXT="Investigation report generated: \({REPORT_FILE_PATH}`. Attachment failed or not available. Summary: [Include brief summary here]."`. Obtain `\){COMMENT_POST_STATUS}`.

    • If Attachment Succeeds: Execute common_steps/document_in_soar.md with ${CASE_ID} and COMMENT_TEXT="Investigation report attached successfully: \({REPORT_FILE_PATH}`."`. Obtain `\){COMMENT_POST_STATUS}`.

  9. Confirm Optional External Upload: You may ask follow up question to ask the user: “Upload the redacted report file (${REPORT_FILE_PATH}) to Google Drive or GCS?”. Options: [“Yes, Drive”, “Yes, GCS”, “No”]. Obtain ${UPLOAD_CHOICE}.

  10. Execute External Upload (Optional):

    • If ${UPLOAD_CHOICE} is “Yes, Drive” (and Drive tool exists): Execute google-drive-mcp.upload_to_drive with ${REPORT_FILE_PATH}.

    • If ${UPLOAD_CHOICE} is “Yes, GCS” (and GCS tool exists): Execute gcs-mcp.upload_to_gcs with ${REPORT_FILE_PATH}.

    • Document upload status/location via common_steps/document_in_soar.md.

  11. Completion: Conclude the runbook execution.

        sequenceDiagram
    participant User
    participant AutomatedAgent as Automated Agent (MCP Client)
    participant SOAR as secops-soar
    participant SIEM as secops-mcp
    participant GTI as gti-mcp
    participant SCC as scc-mcp
    participant Okta as okta-mcp
    participant CS as crowdstrike-mcp
    participant Drive as google-drive-mcp
    participant GCS as gcs-mcp

    User->>AutomatedAgent: Request Investigation Report for Case X
    AutomatedAgent->>SOAR: list_alerts_by_case(case_id=X)
    SOAR-->>AutomatedAgent: Alerts for Case X (containing entities E1, E2...)
    loop For each relevant Entity Ei
        AutomatedAgent->>SIEM: lookup_entity(entity_value=Ei)
        SIEM-->>AutomatedAgent: SIEM context for Ei
        AutomatedAgent->>GTI: get_file_report/get_domain_report(entity=Ei)
        GTI-->>AutomatedAgent: GTI context for Ei
        AutomatedAgent->>SCC: search_scc_findings(query=Ei)
        SCC-->>AutomatedAgent: SCC findings for Ei
        AutomatedAgent->>Okta: lookup_okta_user(user=Ei)
        Okta-->>AutomatedAgent: Okta user details for Ei
        AutomatedAgent->>CS: get_host_details(host=Ei)
        CS-->>AutomatedAgent: CrowdStrike host details for Ei
    end
    Note over AutomatedAgent: Synthesize findings, redact/defang sensitive data (FINAL_REPORT_CONTENT)
    Note over AutomatedAgent: Construct REPORT_NAME (e.g., investigation_report_case_X.md)
    AutomatedAgent->>GenerateReportFile: common_steps/generate_report_file.md(REPORT_CONTENTS=FINAL_REPORT_CONTENT, REPORT_NAME=REPORT_NAME)
    GenerateReportFile-->>AutomatedAgent: REPORT_FILE_PATH, WRITE_STATUS
    Note over AutomatedAgent: Report created locally at REPORT_FILE_PATH
    AutomatedAgent->>SOAR: siemplify_add_attachment_to_case(case_id=X, file_path=REPORT_FILE_PATH)
    SOAR-->>AutomatedAgent: Attachment confirmation
    AutomatedAgent->>User: Confirm: "Upload redacted report to Drive/GCS? (Yes, Drive/Yes, GCS/No)"
    User->>AutomatedAgent: Response (e.g., "Yes, Drive")
    alt Upload Confirmed
        alt Upload to Drive
            AutomatedAgent->>Drive: upload_to_drive(file_path="investigation_report_case_X.md", destination="Reports Folder")
            Drive-->>AutomatedAgent: Drive upload confirmation
        else Upload to GCS
            AutomatedAgent->>GCS: upload_to_gcs(file_path="investigation_report_case_X.md", bucket="security-reports", object_name="case_X_report.md")
            GCS-->>AutomatedAgent: GCS upload confirmation
        end
    end
    AutomatedAgent->>AutomatedAgent: attempt_completion(result="Investigation report created, attached to Case X, and optionally uploaded.")

Completion Criteria#

Investigation findings synthesized, report structured according to guidelines, content reviewed/redacted by analyst, report file generated locally, and SOAR case updated with attachment status or fallback comment. Optional external upload handled if requested and possible.

Rubrics#

The following rubric is used to evaluate the execution of this Reporting runbook by an LLM agent.

Grading Scale (0-100 Points)#

Criteria

Points

Description

Data Collection

25

Gathered all necessary data points and metrics for the report.

Report Generation

30

Generated the report in the correct format with accurate content.

Quality & Clarity

15

Ensure the report is readable, well-structured, and error-free.

Delivery

15

Delivered or saved the report to the correct location/recipient.

Operational Artifacts

15

Produced required artifacts: Sequence diagram, execution metadata (date/cost), and summary.

Evaluation Criteria Details#

1. Data Collection (25 Points)#

  • 25 pts: Successfully retrieved all required data (alerts, stats, summaries) from sources.

2. Report Generation (30 Points)#

  • 15 pts: Formatted the data correctly into the target template (Markdown, PDF, etc.).

  • 15 pts: Included all required sections (Executive Summary, Details, etc.).

3. Quality & Clarity (15 Points)#

  • 15 pts: The generated text is coherent, accurate, and professional.

4. Delivery (15 Points)#

  • 15 pts: Successfully saved the file or sent the notification/email as required.

5. Operational Artifacts (15 Points)#

  • 5 pts: Sequence Diagram: Produced a Mermaid sequence diagram visualizing the steps taken.

  • 5 pts: Execution Metadata: Recorded the date, duration, and estimated token cost.

  • 5 pts: Summary Report: Generated a concise summary of the actions and outcomes.

Contents