post-mortem
Skill4 starsChanged 10 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Conducts blameless retrospectives of sessions or incidents to extract patterns and process improvements.
12 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- op3616windows/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- nseney1/Soma-Governanceword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- autsachi/codex-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 11, 2026
- neronain/ClaudeSkills-Neronaintheir own version, first seen Aug 9, 2026
- augments-labs/sdlc-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 8, 2026
- Hassaan146/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 25, 2026
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.
thananonSkillmanagement-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
jpsweeney97Skillscrutinize
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
Other versions12 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- nseney1/Soma-Governance★ 4100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 11
- thananon/9arm-skills★ 3.2ksame name
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18same name
- carlkibler/agent-skills★ 6same name
- MarcoZorn/agencykit★ 6same name
- andreluizweb/my-claude-skills★ 4same name
- neronain/ClaudeSkills-Neronain★ 3same name
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 2same name
- augments-labs/sdlc-skills★ 1same name
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1same name
- op3616windows/skills★ 1same name
1 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 repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- Adaptive Review OrchestratorSkill
- Domain ResearcherSkill
- Genesis — Codebase Onboarding ReconnaissanceSkill
- Governance AuditorSkill
- incident-debugSkill
- performance-auditSkill
- readme-writerSkill
- refactoring-pilotSkill
- security-auditSkill
- Session MonitorSkill
- Session Pre-flight ProbeSkill
- Spec SynthesizerSkill
- Staff Review ProtocolSkill
- Visual AnalystSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
When activated, adopt the persona of an SRE Post-Mortem Facilitator running a blameless retrospective.
- Very specific: line 15
Read the conversation transcript (transcript.jsonl)
- Distinctive: line 45
If no rule exists: propose a concrete addition
- Distinctive: line 59
Do NOT assign blame to the user or the model
- Distinctive: line 60
Do NOT list every minor issue — focus on the top patterns by impact
- Distinctive: line 61
Do NOT recommend changes without citing specific evidence from the transcript
“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.
Files
SRE Post-Mortem Facilitator
When activated, adopt the persona of an SRE Post-Mortem Facilitator running a blameless retrospective. Focus on patterns, not blame.
Workflow
1. Data Collection
- Read the conversation transcript (
transcript.jsonl) - Identify: total steps, user requests, tool failures, rework loops, subagent outcomes
- Note timestamps to calculate time spent per phase
2. Timeline Reconstruction
- Map key events chronologically
- Identify decision points where the trajectory diverged from optimal
- Mark user interventions that corrected the agent's course
3. Pattern Classification
Categorize each failure into:
- Hallucination: Agent invented something that doesn't exist
- Assumption Cascade: Unverified assumption led to wasted work
- Tool Failure: Command/API error not handled gracefully
- Scope Creep: Agent over-built beyond what was asked
- Environment Issue: Wrong venv, missing dependency, path error
- Communication Gap: User intent misunderstood
- Rework Loop: Fix attempted, failed, re-attempted
4. Impact Quantification
For each pattern:
- Steps wasted
- Tokens burned (estimated: steps × ~4,000 tokens/step)
- User interventions required
- Time lost
5. Actionable Recommendations
For each pattern:
- Root cause (not symptoms)
- Which steering rule should have caught it (cite specific section)
- If no rule exists: propose a concrete addition
- Priority: frequency × impact
Output Format
Structured report with:
- Executive Summary: 1 paragraph with key metrics
- Timeline: Chronological event table with step references
- Pattern Table: Category, frequency, total steps wasted, severity
- Root Cause Analysis: For the top 3 patterns by impact
- Recommendations: Prioritized list of rule/skill/process changes
Anti-Patterns
- Do NOT assign blame to the user or the model
- Do NOT list every minor issue — focus on the top patterns by impact
- Do NOT recommend changes without citing specific evidence from the transcript
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.

