Source profileQuality 82/100

wshobson/agents/plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.md

postmortem-writing

Write effective blameless postmortems with root cause analysis, timelines, and action items. Use when conducting incident reviews, writing postmortem documents, or improving incident response processes.

Source repository stars
38,313
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
1
Last source update
2026-07-22
Source checked
2026-07-28

Decision brief

What it does—and where it fits

Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence.

Best for

  • Conducting post-incident reviews
  • Writing postmortem documents
  • Facilitating blameless postmortem meetings

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "postmortem-writing" from https://github.com/wshobson/agents/blob/c4b82b0ad771190355eb8e204b1329732a18449a/plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.md at commit c4b82b0ad771190355eb8e204b1329732a18449a. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Quick Start

    Review the “Quick Start” section in the pinned source before continuing.

    Review and apply the “Quick Start” source section.
  2. 02

    Why 4: Why wasn't this caught in code review?

    Answer: The reviewer focused on the functional change (the bug fix) and didn't notice the infrastructure change.

    Answer: The reviewer focused on the functional change (the bug fix) and didn't notice the infrastructure change.Evidence: Review comments only discuss business logic.
  3. 03

    2. Timeline Review (15 min)

    Walk through events chronologically

    Walk through events chronologicallyAsk clarifying questionsIdentify gaps in timeline
  4. 04

    When to Use This Skill

    Conducting post-incident reviews

    Conducting post-incident reviewsWriting postmortem documentsFacilitating blameless postmortem meetings
  5. 05

    Core Concepts

    SEV1 or SEV2 incidents

    SEV1 or SEV2 incidentsCustomer-facing outages 15 minutesData loss or security incidents

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

Reads files

low · line 50

The documentation asks the agent to read local files, directories, or repositories.

Full template library and detailed worked examples live in `references/details.md`. Read that file when you need the concrete templates.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score82/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars38,313SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
wshobson/agents
Skill path
plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.md
Commit
c4b82b0ad771190355eb8e204b1329732a18449a
License
MIT
Collected
2026-07-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

Postmortem Writing

Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence.

When to Use This Skill

  • Conducting post-incident reviews
  • Writing postmortem documents
  • Facilitating blameless postmortem meetings
  • Identifying root causes and contributing factors
  • Creating actionable follow-up items
  • Building organizational learning culture

Core Concepts

1. Blameless Culture

Blame-FocusedBlameless
"Who caused this?""What conditions allowed this?"
"Someone made a mistake""The system allowed this mistake"
Punish individualsImprove systems
Hide informationShare learnings
Fear of speaking upPsychological safety

2. Postmortem Triggers

  • SEV1 or SEV2 incidents
  • Customer-facing outages > 15 minutes
  • Data loss or security incidents
  • Near-misses that could have been severe
  • Novel failure modes
  • Incidents requiring unusual intervention

Quick Start

Postmortem Timeline

Day 0: Incident occurs
Day 1-2: Draft postmortem document
Day 3-5: Postmortem meeting
Day 5-7: Finalize document, create tickets
Week 2+: Action item completion
Quarterly: Review patterns across incidents

Templates and detailed worked examples

Full template library and detailed worked examples live in references/details.md. Read that file when you need the concrete templates.

References


### Template 2: 5 Whys Analysis

```markdown
# 5 Whys Analysis: [Incident]

## Problem Statement

Payment service experienced 47-minute outage due to database connection exhaustion.

## Analysis

### Why #1: Why did the service fail?

**Answer**: Database connections were exhausted, causing all new requests to fail.

**Evidence**: Metrics showed connection count at 100/100 (max), with 500+ pending requests.

---

### Why #2: Why were database connections exhausted?

**Answer**: Each incoming request opened a new database connection instead of using the connection pool.

**Evidence**: Code diff shows direct `DriverManager.getConnection()` instead of pooled `DataSource`.

---

### Why #3: Why did the code bypass the connection pool?

**Answer**: A developer refactored the repository class and inadvertently changed the connection acquisition method.

**Evidence**: PR #1234 shows the change, made while fixing a different bug.

---

### Why #4: Why wasn't this caught in code review?

**Answer**: The reviewer focused on the functional change (the bug fix) and didn't notice the infrastructure change.

**Evidence**: Review comments only discuss business logic.

---

### Why #5: Why isn't there a safety net for this type of change?

**Answer**: We lack automated tests that verify connection pool behavior and lack documentation about our connection patterns.

**Evidence**: Test suite has no tests for connection handling; wiki has no article on database connections.

## Root Causes Identified

1. **Primary**: Missing automated tests for infrastructure behavior
2. **Secondary**: Insufficient documentation of architectural patterns
3. **Tertiary**: Code review checklist doesn't include infrastructure considerations

## Systemic Improvements

| Root Cause    | Improvement                       | Type       |
| ------------- | --------------------------------- | ---------- |
| Missing tests | Add infrastructure behavior tests | Prevention |
| Missing docs  | Document connection patterns      | Prevention |
| Review gaps   | Update review checklist           | Detection  |
| No canary     | Implement canary deployments      | Mitigation |

Template 3: Quick Postmortem (Minor Incidents)

# Quick Postmortem: [Brief Title]

**Date**: 2024-01-15 | **Duration**: 12 min | **Severity**: SEV3

## What Happened

API latency spiked to 5s due to cache miss storm after cache flush.

## Timeline

- 10:00 - Cache flush initiated for config update
- 10:02 - Latency alerts fire
- 10:05 - Identified as cache miss storm
- 10:08 - Enabled cache warming
- 10:12 - Latency normalized

## Root Cause

Full cache flush for minor config update caused thundering herd.

## Fix

- Immediate: Enabled cache warming
- Long-term: Implement partial cache invalidation (ENG-999)

## Lessons

Don't full-flush cache in production; use targeted invalidation.

Facilitation Guide

Running a Postmortem Meeting

## Meeting Structure (60 minutes)

### 1. Opening (5 min)

- Remind everyone of blameless culture
- "We're here to learn, not to blame"
- Review meeting norms

### 2. Timeline Review (15 min)

- Walk through events chronologically
- Ask clarifying questions
- Identify gaps in timeline

### 3. Analysis Discussion (20 min)

- What failed?
- Why did it fail?
- What conditions allowed this?
- What would have prevented it?

### 4. Action Items (15 min)

- Brainstorm improvements
- Prioritize by impact and effort
- Assign owners and due dates

### 5. Closing (5 min)

- Summarize key learnings
- Confirm action item owners
- Schedule follow-up if needed

## Facilitation Tips

- Keep discussion on track
- Redirect blame to systems
- Encourage quiet participants
- Document dissenting views
- Time-box tangents

Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Anti-PatternProblemBetter Approach
Blame gameShuts down learningFocus on systems
Shallow analysisDoesn't prevent recurrenceAsk "why" 5 times
No action itemsWaste of timeAlways have concrete next steps
Unrealistic actionsNever completedScope to achievable tasks
No follow-upActions forgottenTrack in ticketing system

Best Practices

Do's

  • Start immediately - Memory fades fast
  • Be specific - Exact times, exact errors
  • Include graphs - Visual evidence
  • Assign owners - No orphan action items
  • Share widely - Organizational learning

Don'ts

  • Don't name and shame - Ever
  • Don't skip small incidents - They reveal patterns
  • Don't make it a blame doc - That kills learning
  • Don't create busywork - Actions should be meaningful
  • Don't skip follow-up - Verify actions completed

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 8610,762

Jeffallan/claude-skills

code-reviewer

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quali

Computed 85234,327

affaan-m/ECC

dmux-workflows

Multi-agent orchestration using dmux (tmux pane manager for AI agents). Patterns for parallel agent workflows across Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and other harnesses. Use when running multiple agent sessions in parallel or coordinating multi-agent development workflows.

Computed 84933

dpearson2699/swift-ios-skills

swiftui-performance

Profile, diagnose, and remediate SwiftUI runtime performance using code review, Instruments, and repeatable measurements. Use when a SwiftUI screen renders slowly, scrolling or animations hitch, view bodies update excessively, list identity churns, layout work spikes, or broad Observation dependencies raise CPU cost. Covers evidence-based triage, SwiftUI Instruments lanes, lazy-container guardrails, state lifetime, and before/after verification.

Computed 83234,327

affaan-m/ECC

dmux-workflows

Multi-agent orchestration using dmux (tmux pane manager for AI agents). Patterns for parallel agent workflows across Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and other harnesses. Use when running multiple agent sessions in parallel or coordinating multi-agent development workflows.