incident-postmortem
Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Write blameless postmortem reports covering timeline reconstruction, root cause analysis, contributing factors, and action items. Use after a production incident, service disruption, or near-miss. Trigger with "postmortem", "incident review", "write a post-mortem", "lessons learned", or "blameless review".
18 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jaskirat1616/grok-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- github/awesome-copilottheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- pathiec92/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- fattain-naime/engineering-docstheir own version, first seen Oct 24, 2026
- JayRHa/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- anthropics/claude-tag-pluginstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use systematic-debugging.
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.
OpenAISkillsystematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions18 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 18
- github/awesome-copilot★ 41ksame name
- proflead/codex-skills-library★ 153same name
- logly/mureo★ 64same name
- anthropics/claude-tag-plugins★ 60same name
- johnqtcg/awesome-skills★ 30same name
- jaskirat1616/grok-skills★ 22same name
- JayRHa/agent-skills★ 12same name
- JayRHa/AgentSkills★ 12same name
- z-Zihan/Evir★ 11same name
- fattain-naime/engineering-docs★ 6same name
8 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository164 other files it gives its agents.
- instrument-data-to-allotropeSkill
- literature-reviewSkill
- nextflow-developmentSkill
- scientific-problem-selectionSkill
- scvi-toolsSkill
- single-cell-rna-qcSkill
- discover-brandSkill
- enforce-voiceSkill
- generate-guidelinesSkill
- csat-reportSkill
- customer-escalationSkill
- customer-researchSkill
- draft-responseSkill
- kb-articleSkill
- sentiment-analysisSkill
- ticket-triageSkill
- analyzeSkill
- build-dashboardSkill
- create-vizSkill
- data-context-extractorSkill
- data-modelingSkill
- data-pipelineSkill
- etl-designSkill
- explore-dataSkill
- sql-queriesSkill
- statistical-analysisSkill
- validate-dataSkill
- write-querySkill
- accessibility-reviewSkill
- component-librarySkill
- design-critiqueSkill
- design-handoffSkill
- design-systemSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- research-synthesisSkill
- user-researchSkill
- ux-copySkill
- wireframingSkill
- Agent DevelopmentSkill
- CLAUDE.md ManagementSkill
- MCP Server BuilderSkill
- Plugin DevelopmentSkill
- Prompt EngineeringSkill
- Skill CreatorSkill
- curriculum-designSkill
- lesson-planningSkill
- quiz-generatorSkill
- study-guideSkill
- tutoringSkill
- api-designSkill
- architectureSkill
- ci-cd-pipelineSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- database-migrationSkill
- debugSkill
- dependency-auditSkill
- deploy-checklistSkill
- documentationSkill
- error-handlingSkill
- git-workflowSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 15 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
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 24
Write blameless postmortems documenting what happened, why, and how to prevent recurrence.
- Distinctive: line 95
Action: Document what happened (caught in staging), analyze why not caught earlier (insufficient contract testing), define actions to …
- Distinctive: line 99
Keep it blameless. "The deploy process allowed an untested change" not "Person X deployed without testing."
- Distinctive: line 100
Write within 48 hours while memory is fresh.
- Distinctive: line 102
Every action item needs a single owner and realistic deadline.
- Distinctive: line 104
Look for patterns across postmortems for systemic fixes.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 15 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.
Files
Incident Postmortem
Write blameless postmortems documenting what happened, why, and how to prevent recurrence. Focus on systemic improvements, not individual fault.
Workflow
Step 1: Gather Data
Alerts and monitoring data, responder action timeline, communication logs (incident channel, status page), system logs and traces, customer impact data, and prior similar incidents.
Step 2: Reconstruct Timeline
Chronological account: detection (when and how), response (acknowledgment, who responded), diagnosis (hypotheses tested, dead ends), mitigation (impact reduced/eliminated), resolution (root cause fixed), and communication (stakeholder/customer notifications). Record timestamp, action, and actor for each entry.
Step 3: Root Cause Analysis
Apply "Five Whys" or similar. Identify root cause(s), contributing factors (process gaps, technical debt, human factors, organizational issues), detection gaps, and response friction.
Step 4: Assess Impact
Duration, users affected, revenue impact, SLA breach, reputational impact, and data impact (loss, corruption, exposure).
Step 5: Define Action Items
Preventive (address root cause), detective (improve monitoring/alerting), mitigative (reduce future impact), and process (update runbooks/escalation). Each action needs an owner, deadline, and tracking ticket.
Output Format
## Incident Postmortem
**Incident**: [Title] | **Severity**: [SEV1-4]
**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD] | **Duration**: [X hrs Y min]
**Status**: [Draft / Final]
### Summary
[3-4 sentence blameless summary]
### Impact
| Dimension | Measurement |
|-----------|-------------|
| Duration | [X hrs] |
| Users affected | [N] ([X]%) |
| SLA breach | [Yes/No] |
### Timeline
| Time (UTC) | Event | Actor |
|------------|-------|-------|
| HH:MM | [First sign] | [System] |
| HH:MM | [Alert fires] | [Monitoring] |
| HH:MM | [Mitigation applied] | [Name] |
| HH:MM | [Resolved] | [Name] |
### Root Cause
[Clear explanation]
### Contributing Factors
1. [Factor] -- [Process / Technical / Human / Organizational]
### What Went Well
- [Effective element]
### Action Items
| # | Action | Type | Owner | Due | Tracking |
|---|--------|------|-------|-----|----------|
| 1 | [Action] | Preventive | [Name] | [Date] | [Ticket] |Examples
User: "Write a postmortem for yesterday's 2-hour API outage" Action: Reconstruct timeline, identify root cause (expired TLS certificate), contributing factors (no expiry monitoring, manual renewal), define actions (automate renewal, add alerting).
User: "Near-miss postmortem -- almost shipped a breaking API change" Action: Document what happened (caught in staging), analyze why not caught earlier (insufficient contract testing), define actions to strengthen the safety net.
Best Practices
- Keep it blameless. "The deploy process allowed an untested change" not "Person X deployed without testing."
- Write within 48 hours while memory is fresh.
- Include "what went well" alongside improvements.
- Every action item needs a single owner and realistic deadline.
- Track action item completion -- postmortems without follow-through are theater.
- Look for patterns across postmortems for systemic fixes.
- Share broadly -- learning extends beyond the affected team.
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.

