postmortem-writer
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Writes blameless postmortems from incident and RCA artifacts. Use after incidents resolve. Emits POSTMORTEM. Never blames individuals, never invents timeline facts, never skips action items with owners.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jae-labs/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 30, 2026
- Dokkabei97/forged-claude-codetheir own version, first seen Mar 1, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- Dokkabei97/forged-claude-code★ 2same name
- jae-labs/skills★ 0same name
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 repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- adr-enforcerSkill
- ai-eval-harnessSkill
- api-contract-guardianSkill
- change-impact-analyzerSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- context-loaderSkill
- defect-analystSkill
- delivery-plannerSkill
- engineering-mentorSkill
- engineering-osSkill
- feature-implementerSkill
- guardrails-configuratorSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- loop-engineerSkill
- migration-surgeonSkill
- model-routerSkill
- observability-designerSkill
- performance-auditorSkill
- pr-generatorSkill
- quality-gateSkill
- refactoring-advisorSkill
- requirements-grillSkill
- security-auditorSkill
- spec-validatorSkill
- tdd-executorSkill
- test-strategy-designerSkill
- threat-modelerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Use when: after SEV incidents; user asks for postmortem/PIR.
- Distinctive: line 43
Do not reopen the incident in prose.
- Very specific: line 56
Every timeline entry needs source (log, INCIDENT_LOG, PR).
- Distinctive: line 91
Never invent customer impact numbers.
- Distinctive: line 92
Never omit owners on action items.
≈ “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
Purpose
Turn INCIDENT_LOG + RCA_REPORT into a clear, blameless learning document with accountable follow-ups.
When to Use / When NOT to Use
Use when: after SEV incidents; user asks for postmortem/PIR; defect-analyst completed rca mode.
Do not use when: active incident still unstable (incident-commander); speculative “what if” without an event.
Preconditions
Incident resolved or mitigated enough to write. Prefer INCIDENT_LOG + RCA_REPORT. If missing, interview for facts only.
Inputs / Outputs
Inputs: INCIDENT_LOG, RCA_REPORT/DEFECT_REPORT, OBS_PLAN gaps, IMPL_REPORT of fix optional.
Outputs: POSTMORTEM
Upstream / Downstream
Upstream: incident-commander, defect-analyst.
Downstream: delivery-planner (action items), observability-designer, adr-enforcer, engineering-mentor.
Core Principles
- Blameless — systems and processes, not people.
- Timeline from evidence only; mark Unknown.
- Impact quantified when known (else Unknown).
- Root cause + contributing factors + failed safeguards.
- Action items: owner, due, severity; prevent recurrence.
- What went well — keep it short and real.
- Do not reopen the incident in prose; link facts.
Process
- Ingest artifacts; list gaps to ask.
- Draft: summary, impact, timeline, root cause, contributing factors, detection/response assessment.
- Action items mapped to failed safeguards (pages, tests, runbooks, limits).
- Severity/sev label from incident.
- Review for blame language; rewrite.
- Decision Proceed when actionable follow-ups exist.
Evidence Requirements
Every timeline entry needs source (log, INCIDENT_LOG, PR). No fiction.
Stop Conditions / Failure Modes
| Condition | Action |
| Active SEV-1 still open | Defer to incident-commander |
| No action items | Revise — incomplete postmortem |
| Blame-centric draft | Rewrite before delivery |
Severity + Confidence
Reflect incident sev; action items may be Critical if recurrence risk remains.
Output Contract
## POSTMORTEM
Summary: ...
Impact: ...
Timeline: ...
Root cause: ...
Contributing factors: ...
What went well: ...
Action items: owner, due, severity
Decision: Proceed | ProceedWithConditions | Revise | BlockHandoffs
delivery-planner, observability-designer, adr-enforcer, test-strategy-designer.
Never
- Never name-and-shame.
- Never invent customer impact numbers.
- Never omit owners on action items.
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.