agentleFS
Sign inStart free
Hassaan146Hassaan146/claude-skills/post-mortem/SKILL.md

post-mortem

Skill18 starsChanged 4 months agoNo licenceView on GitHub

/cs:post-mortem <decision> — Honest retrospective on an executed decision, scored against original assumptions and dissent. Closes the strategic sprint loop. Use when a decision hits its 90-day review checkpoint or its kill criteria trigger — e.g. scoring last quarter's pricing change against its pre-committed success metrics.

12 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use management-talk and scrutinize.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • thananonSkill

    management-talk

    Rewrite engineer-to-engineer content for engineering-org leadership (VPs, directors, PMs, release managers, execs in an engineering-savvy company) and shape it for the channel it is going to — JIRA comment, Slack post, async standup line, email, or meeting talking-points. Trigger when the user asks to write/rewrite for management / exec / VP / director / PM / release manager, asks for an "executive summary / leadership update / status update", says "make this less technical / less jargony", or asks for a slack / email / standup / meeting version of work originally written engineer-to-engineer.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • jpsweeney97Skill

    scrutinize

    Use when the user explicitly wants a harsher-than-normal critical review of a plan, design, draft, argument, decision, or code artifact. Trigger on requests like "scrutinize this", "be brutal", "tear this apart", "assume this is wrong", "reject until proven otherwise", or "review this with maximum scrutiny". Challenge the premise first, then run two passes that search for flaws, omissions, weak assumptions, second-order effects, edge cases, and hidden dependencies. Do not use for routine code review, collaborative editing, or balanced feedback when the user did not ask for an adversarial stance.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

No licence file, so all rights are reserved — read it at the source. We count its rules but don't quote them. Read them on GitHub.

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free