---
name: "SLA Escalation Playbooks"
description: >
  A cross-PSA escalation framework for SLA pressure: how each PSA family
  (Autotask, HaloPSA, ConnectWise Manage, Syncro, Kaseya BMS) models
  SLA/priority state and where breach risk lives in each, a normalized
  breach-risk state model (healthy, at risk, breached-response,
  breached-resolution) with the default escalation action per state, how
  notification audience shifts by contract tier, and the evidence to gather
  before paging anyone.
when_to_use: >-
  When a ticket is approaching or has breached its SLA response or resolution
  target and the operator needs to know how — and to whom — to escalate it.
  Use when: SLA breach, SLA at risk, escalate this ticket, who do I notify,
  breach notification, response time risk, resolution target missed, "what's
  about to breach".
---

# SLA Escalation Playbooks

## Overview

SLA breaches are the single most reliable predictor of a client escalation call. This
skill is the judgment layer on top of whatever SLA/priority data your connected PSA
returns: it tells you when a ticket's breach risk crosses a threshold that warrants
action, who should be notified at that threshold, what evidence to attach to the
escalation, and how the response changes for a Platinum client versus a break-fix
client on the same board.

This skill does not re-teach any single PSA's ticket API. It assumes you already know
how to fetch a ticket and its SLA fields via the connected vendor's tools (or via
`conduit__search_tools` if you don't yet know which tools are available) — what it
adds is the cross-vendor decision logic for what to do with that data once you have
it.

## Anti-triggers

- **A platform's SLA policy configuration** — policy fields, business-hours
  calendars, and how a vendor computes its own due dates are that
  connector's surface; use `freshdesk-sla-business-hours`, `autotask-tickets`,
  or `halopsa-tickets`.
- **Engineering error budgets** — SLO burn rate against an uptime or
  error-rate target is a different measurement from a contractual response
  time; use `error-budget-tracking` in devops-pack.

## Key Concepts

### How each PSA family models SLA state

Every PSA expresses "how close is this ticket to breaching" differently. Resolve the
concrete field/tool names for the connected instance before relying on any of this —
these are the *shapes* to expect, not literal API contracts:

| PSA family | SLA/priority model | Where breach risk lives |
|---|---|---|
| **Autotask** | Numeric ticket priority (1–4) plus a Service Level Agreement linked to the client's contract, driving separate first-response and resolution due-date fields on the ticket | `autotask__get_ticket_details` / `autotask__search_tickets` — look for resolution plan / due-date fields; `autotask__list_ticket_priorities` resolves the priority label |
| **HaloPSA** | SLA profile assigned per ticket (often derived from client + priority), with explicit response and resolution target timestamps and a breach flag | `halopsa__tickets_get` returns `deadlinedate` / SLA hold state; `halopsa__tickets_list` can be filtered/sorted by SLA proximity |
| **ConnectWise Manage/PSA** | SLA record tied to board + priority, combined with Impact/Urgency fields; boards often carry their own escalation status flag | Ticket record's SLA/status fields — confirm the board's escalation flag naming, it is board-configurable |
| **Syncro** | Lighter-weight: ticket "Due Date" plus priority, no separate formal SLA engine in most instances | Ticket due-date field and priority; treat due-date proximity as the SLA proxy |
| **Kaseya BMS** | Service Desk SLA tied to the client's Service Level Agreement, with response/resolution timers per ticket | Ticket SLA timer fields exposed by the connected Kaseya BMS tools |

If the org has more than one PSA connected (rare, but happens during a PSA migration),
scope explicitly to one board/instance per run and say which one you used.

### The common escalation decision framework

Regardless of which PSA is behind the numbers, normalize every ticket to a single
**breach-risk state** before deciding what to do:

1. **Healthy** — comfortably inside both response and resolution targets.
2. **At risk** — inside target but less than ~25% of the allotted window remains
   (tune this threshold to the org's own norms if documented; state the threshold you
   used).
3. **Breached — response** — first-response target missed; no technician has
   substantively engaged yet.
4. **Breached — resolution** — resolution target missed; ticket has had engagement
   but is not resolved.

Escalation action scales with state:

| State | Default action |
|---|---|
| Healthy | No action |
| At risk | Internal nudge to the assigned technician (or to the dispatcher if unassigned) |
| Breached — response | Escalate to team lead/service manager; internal note logged on the ticket |
| Breached — resolution | Escalate to service manager and, per contract tier below, to the client |

### Evidence to gather before escalating

Never escalate on the SLA timer alone — attach the context a manager or client
contact will actually need:

- Ticket age and full status-transition history (when did it last move, and to what)
- Assigned technician (or confirmation it's unassigned) and their current open-ticket
  count, if the PSA exposes technician workload
- Last client-visible communication timestamp and its content
- Whether the ticket is waiting on the client (see `board-hygiene` skill) — a breach
  caused by a non-responsive client is a different conversation than one caused by an
  idle queue
- Contract/SLA tier for the client (see below)

### Escalation by contract tier

Contract tier changes *who* gets notified and *whether the client is proactively
contacted*, not whether the breach itself matters:

| Tier (typical naming) | On "at risk" | On "breached" |
|---|---|---|
| Premium / Platinum / fully-managed | Team lead notified at "at risk"; account manager loop-in on breach | Proactive client contact before the client notices, with a remediation ETA |
| Standard / Managed | Team lead notified on breach only | Client contact only if they ask, but the internal note documents the breach for QBR reporting |
| Bronze / Block-hours / break-fix | Internal reassignment only | Client contact per the ticket's own status, no proactive SLA-specific comms (these contracts often don't carry a formal SLA at all) |

Confirm actual tier-to-contract mapping against the PSA's contract/agreement records
(or `client-360-briefer`-style client context if the org also has the `wyre-gateway`
plugin's agents available) rather than assuming — tier names vary a lot by MSP.

### If no PSA is connected

This skill cannot compute breach state without a source of ticket/SLA truth. If
`conduit__search_tools` (or a direct attempt at a PSA tool call) shows no PSA
connector present, say so explicitly and stop rather than guessing: "No PSA is
connected, so SLA state can't be verified. Here is the general escalation framework
above — apply it manually once ticket data is available." Do not fabricate SLA
figures or invent a ticket's breach state.

## Best Practices

- Log the escalation itself as a ticket note/action where the PSA supports it, so the
  audit trail lives with the ticket, not just in chat.

## Related Skills

- [Dispatch Prioritization](../dispatch-prioritization/SKILL.md) — scoring and
  assigning the unassigned queue, of which SLA proximity is one factor
- [Board Hygiene](../board-hygiene/SKILL.md) — stale and stuck-ticket detection,
  including distinguishing "waiting on client" from a real SLA risk