agentleFS
bks-labbks-lab/open-bridge/skills/task-close-postmortem/SKILL.md

task-close-postmortem

Skill13 starsChanged 13 days agoMITView on GitHub

Postmortem capture and bridge-improvement scan at task close: surfaces optional questions (time invested, what went well, what burned time, bridge gaps), writes frontmatter to STATUS.md, and generates proposals under work/_learning/proposals/ for review via /bridge-learn. Trigger: "task done", "wrap up", "post-mortem", "/postmortem the last hour", "what did we learn from X".

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

10 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 7 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 7

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Default-on (per bridge-config.yaml.learning.postmortem.enabled) but cost-light: fast-path through all six skips is <20 seconds.

    line 22
  2. Very specific:

    Use the conversation language from bridge-config.yaml.language.conversation (default en).

    line 67
  3. Very specific:

    Use the Edit tool against work/tasks/<slug>/STATUS.md.

    line 72
  4. Distinctive:

    After all six questions are answered (or skipped), scan for proposal-worthy candidates from THREE sources, in order:

    line 99
  5. Very specific:

    Use the template in references/proposal-writing.md.

    line 134
  6. Very specific:

    Default severity: P2 for postmortem-sourced proposals.

    line 137
  7. Very specific:

    Default scope: user for postmortem-sourced proposals unless the target is clearly a CORE file (a generic skill, a CORE standing-order, the …

    line 141
  8. Very specific:

    Default status: pending. Never write accepted or implemented from this skill — those are /bridge-learn states.

    line 147
  9. Distinctive:

    After all phases complete, return a single block:

    line 152
  10. Distinctive:

    If all six questions skipped:

    line 163

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Task-Close Postmortem

Captures a short reflection at task close, maps any surfaced gaps to concrete Bridge-File-Improvement-Proposals, and writes both back as structured artifacts.

The skill is always optional and always interruptible — every question is skippable, and skipping all six leaves the task unchanged from today's behavior. Default-on (per bridge-config.yaml.learning.postmortem.enabled) but cost-light: fast-path through all six skips is <20 seconds.

When this skill runs

  1. Auto, via task-sync.md Phase 3b — every time a task closes, after the dual_doku self-check passes and before the 3-step move.
  2. Manual — when the user says any of: "/postmortem the last hour", "reflect on the piece just finished", "post-mortem this", "what did we learn from X". In manual mode the scope is not bound to a task folder — the skill reflects on the recent activity (last log.md entries, recent commits, recent file edits). No frontmatter writes happen in manual mode; output is only the proposals.

Inputs

Auto mode:

  • work/tasks/<slug>/STATUS.md — the task being closed
  • workflow/contexts/<context>.yaml if STATUS references a context
  • recent entries from work/log.md (last 24h or all entries since task created)

Manual mode:

  • last N log.md entries (N defaults to last 10, or "the last hour")
  • recent uncommitted git diff in this Bridge repo and any other repos touched

The six questions

(Full script in references/postmortem-questions.md.)

Surface them one at a time. Accept skip-phrases from bridge-config.yaml.learning.postmortem.skip_phrases — default ["skip", "next", "—", "no", "next", "."]. If cutdown_after_skips (default 3) consecutive skips occur, switch to Cutdown mode for the remaining questions: ask only the single catch-all "anything else worth noting?". Empty answer → done.

#Question (EN)Writes to
1Time invested?frontmatter time_invested
2Estimate vs actual?frontmatter estimate_vs_actual
3What went well?body ## Postmortem → "What went well"
4What burned time?body ## Postmortem → "What did not go well"
5Did the bridge fail you?frontmatter bridge_gaps[] + body
6Concrete improvement?proposal file + body

Use the conversation language from bridge-config.yaml.language.conversation (default en). EN fallback if missing.

Frontmatter write rules

Use the Edit tool against work/tasks/<slug>/STATUS.md. All four fields (time_invested, estimate_vs_actual, lessons, bridge_gaps) are optional in the schema (work/templates/_schema.status.yaml) — omit the line entirely when the user skipped that question. Never write empty strings or null.

Q1 → time_invested: — accept any of the schema-allowed forms (~12h, P3D, PT4H, —, unknown). Loose parsing OK; if user types "about 12 hours over 3 days", record as "~12h" and add the prose to body.

Q2 → estimate_vs_actual: — match to nearest enum value: ok / 1.5x / 2x / 3x / >3x / re-scoped / —. If user says "estimate was 4h, so 3x" record "3x" and add the math to body for human readability.

Q3+Q4 → body ## Postmortem subsections. Free-form prose. Bullet each line.

Q5 → bridge_gaps[] array. Each entry is one of: {skill: NAME, why: TEXT} / {standing_order: NAME, why: TEXT} / {rule: NAME, why: TEXT} / {doc: NAME, why: TEXT} / {protocol: NAME, why: TEXT} / {memory: NAME, why: TEXT}. A single user answer can yield multiple bridge_gaps entries.

Q6 → free-text improvement. Add to body "Concrete Bridge improvements proposed" sub-section. Each bullet there will be examined in the proposal-writing phase.

Improvement-Scan phase

After all six questions are answered (or skipped), scan for proposal-worthy candidates from THREE sources, in order:

  1. bridge_gaps[] (Q5 structured answers) — one proposal per entry.
  2. Free-text Q6 answer — try to map to a structured proposal; if it doesn't fit cleanly, write a proposal_type: needs-triage proposal.
  3. Touched files during this task — git log --diff-filter=AM --name-only in the relevant repos since task created date. If any file changed in this Bridge repo (skills/, protocols/, rules/, docs/) that wasn't a planned edit, flag as potential trigger-or-routing miss for the postmortem.

Step 0, before any file is written: consult rejected proposals. For each candidate, run python3 scripts/learning-ledger.py prior-rejections <target.path>. It lists rejected proposals on exactly that path (never a task_slug or topic match). On a hit, either carry the list as prior_rejections: [{id, reason}] and say in the body what is different this time, or drop the candidate without writing a file. Never neither. This widens what the writer reads; the decision stays in /bridge-learn (rules/learning-autonomy.md).

For each candidate that survives step 0, write one file to:

work/_learning/proposals/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<task-slug>-<topic-slug>.md

Following the schema in references/_schema.proposal.yaml, a pointer to work/_learning/_schema.proposal.yaml.

Naming rule: <topic-slug> is the gap-id from bridge_gaps[] if structured, or a 3-4-word kebab-case summary if from free-text. Disambiguate collisions with a -2, -3 suffix.

Proposal-writing rules

Use the template in references/proposal-writing.md.

Default severity: P2 for postmortem-sourced proposals. P0/P1 only when the gap is in an actively-used path (existing skill, common standing-order) AND the user explicitly described impact.

Default scope: user for postmortem-sourced proposals unless the target is clearly a CORE file (a generic skill, a CORE standing-order, the schema). The /bridge-learn skill (Phase 2) and /bridge-sync handle promotion to your org overlay / open-bridge later — getting the scope right at proposal-write time saves an audit later.

Default status: pending. Never write accepted or implemented from this skill — those are /bridge-learn states.

Output to user

After all phases complete, return a single block:

✅ Task <slug> postmortem complete.
   <X> answers captured (frontmatter + body)
   <N> proposals written to work/_learning/proposals/
     • <file-1>  [<severity>] <one-line summary>
     • <file-2>  [<severity>] <one-line summary>
   → review per /bridge-learn (Phase 2) — or open the files directly.

If all six questions skipped:

✅ Postmortem skipped — STATUS.md unchanged.

Hand control back to task-sync.md Phase 3c (3-step move).

Edge cases

  • Task has no context: field → skip context.yaml read, proceed.
  • Task has no mandant: field → no impact on postmortem.
  • STATUS.md is malformed → log warning, ask user to fix, exit gracefully (do not mv files yet).
  • Skip-phrase ambiguity ("no" could mean "no, nothing" or "no I'll answer in a moment"): treat as skip; user can backfill manually.
  • User says "wait" / "hold on" / "stop" mid-flow → suspend, do NOT write partial frontmatter, hand control back. User can resume by saying "continue postmortem" / "postmortem continue".
  • Proposals folder doesn't exist → create on first write (mkdir -p work/_learning/proposals/).
  • Bridge-config.yaml not present → assume defaults (postmortem enabled, skip_phrases as above, cutdown_after_skips=3).

Testing the skill

Two ways to dry-run without closing a real task:

  1. Manual mode — say "reflect on the last hour", skill runs without binding to a STATUS.md, just emits a sample proposal-set.
  2. Test fixture — work/_learning/_test/sample-task/STATUS.md (create on demand) — skill runs against the fixture, writes proposals to work/_learning/_test/proposals/, asserts schema validity.

What this skill deliberately does NOT do

  • ❌ Mutate any file outside work/tasks/<slug>/STATUS.md and work/_learning/proposals/. The 3-step move is done by task-sync.md Phase 3c, not here.
  • ❌ Auto-apply any proposal. Every proposal-file is status: pending — accept/reject is the /bridge-learn skill's job.
  • ❌ Probe other repositories (customer-x, partner-project, ...). Only this Bridge repo
    • git-stats for the task duration period.
  • ❌ Write to MEMORY.md. The auto-memory system is separate; a postmortem may suggest a memory entry via bridge_gaps[].memory: but the actual write happens later, human-approved.
  • ❌ Decide when proposals get implemented. That's /bridge-learn.
  • ❌ Run if bridge-config.yaml.learning.postmortem.enabled: false.

Related

  • protocols/standing-orders/task-sync.md § Phase 3b (invokes this skill)
  • work/templates/_schema.status.yaml (schema for the frontmatter fields)
  • work/templates/STATUS.md (template ## Postmortem section)
  • work/_learning/README.md (the aggregation layer this writes into)
  • skills/bridge-learn/SKILL.md (Phase 2 — reviews proposals)
  • bridge-config.yaml.learning.postmortem (config block)
  • docs/memory.md (the parallel system this does NOT touch)

Download now (ZIP)

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.