failure-postmortem
Skill0 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Guide a structured AI system failure post-mortem using 6 named failure patterns, producing a publishable incident report.
In this repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- aarSkill
- agent-cost-modelSkill
- banana-makerSkill
- bitter-lesson-scorecardSkill
- boot-tax-monitorSkill
- compensating-complexity-auditorSkill
- context-fork-guideSkill
- context-hygieneSkill
- counterargument-stress-testSkill
- dark-code-auditSkill
- executive-briefingSkill
- failure-asymmetrySkill
- file-intelSkill
- geopolitical-signal-enricherSkill
- get-api-docsSkill
- gh-reviewSkill
- model-routerSkill
- optimize-descriptionSkill
- prompt-rewriterSkill
- skill-auditSkill
- skill-maintenanceSkill
- spec-gap-detectorSkill
- token-burn-auditorSkill
- what-am-i-forgettingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Use when the user says "post-mortem", "failure analysis", "what went wrong with the agent", "debug this failure", or describes an AI system …
- Distinctive: line 16
Ask the user for:
- Distinctive: line 22
Keep questions tight. One round of clarification max.
- Distinctive: line 89
Ask if any corrective actions should be implemented now
≈ “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.
Files
Failure Post-Mortem Builder
Build a structured post-mortem for an AI system failure. Walks through diagnosis using 6 named failure patterns and produces a publishable incident report.
Trigger
Use when the user says "post-mortem", "failure analysis", "what went wrong with the agent", "debug this failure", or describes an AI system that produced bad output.
Phase 1: Incident Capture
Ask the user for:
- What happened -- the observed bad behavior or output
- What was expected -- the correct behavior
- System context -- which agent/model/pipeline, what inputs triggered it
- Impact -- who was affected, what was the blast radius
Keep questions tight. One round of clarification max.
Phase 2: Failure Pattern Classification
Classify the failure against these 6 patterns (multiple can apply):
| Pattern | Description | Diagnostic Signal |
| Context Degradation | Agent lost track of critical context mid-task due to window limits, compaction, or prompt structure | Output quality dropped partway through; early steps were fine |
| Specification Drift | The spec/prompt was ambiguous or incomplete; agent filled gaps with assumptions | Agent did something "reasonable" but wrong; spec didn't define the edge case |
| Sycophantic Confirmation | Agent agreed with flawed premises or user errors instead of pushing back | User provided wrong info; agent incorporated it without challenge |
| Tool Selection Error | Agent chose the wrong tool, wrong API, or wrong approach for the task | Right intent, wrong execution method; tool existed but wasn't selected |
| Cascade Failure | One error propagated through multiple steps, each compounding the damage | Small initial mistake; large final deviation; intermediate steps didn't catch it |
| Silent Failure | Agent completed without errors but output was wrong; no signal that anything failed | "Success" with bad results; no errors, no warnings, no escalation |
For each matching pattern, explain:
- Why this pattern fits
- Which specific moment in the execution triggered it
- What guardrail was missing
Phase 3: Root Cause
Identify the deepest cause. Use the "5 Whys" technique:
- Why did the failure occur? -> [pattern-level answer]
- Why was that possible? -> [missing guardrail / spec gap]
- Why was that guardrail missing? -> [process / design gap]
- Continue until you hit a systemic cause
- State the root cause in one sentence
Phase 4: Post-Mortem Report
Generate a structured report:
# AI Failure Post-Mortem: [Short Title]
**Date**: [date]
**System**: [agent/pipeline name]
**Severity**: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]
**Status**: [investigating / mitigated / resolved]
## Incident Summary
[2-3 sentences: what happened, what was expected, what was the impact]
## Timeline
- [timestamp/step] -- [what happened]
- ...
## Failure Patterns Identified
### [Pattern Name]
[explanation, evidence, missing guardrail]
## Root Cause
[one-sentence root cause from 5 Whys]
## Corrective Actions
| Action | Type | Priority | Owner |
|--------|------|----------|-------|
| [specific fix] | [prevent / detect / mitigate] | [P0-P3] | [who] |
## Lessons Learned
- [insight that applies beyond this specific incident]Phase 5: Verification
- Confirm the report captures the user's understanding of what happened
- Ask if any corrective actions should be implemented now
- Offer to save the report to the vault or a project directory
Source
Extracted from Nate Kadlac newsletter (2026-03-26) -- "The K-Shaped AI Labor Market" -- failure pattern taxonomy for AI system quality judgment.
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
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.

