Best for
- Conducting post-incident reviews
- Writing postmortem documents
- Facilitating blameless postmortem meetings
wshobson/agents/plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.md
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.
Decision brief
Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence.
Compatibility matrix
| Platform | Status | Evidence | What to check |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Claude Code | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Cursor | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
| Gemini CLI | Not declared | No explicit evidence | Portability before use |
Installation
The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.
npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing"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
Review the “Quick Start” section in the pinned source before continuing.
Answer: The reviewer focused on the functional change (the bug fix) and didn't notice the infrastructure change.
Walk through events chronologically
Conducting post-incident reviews
SEV1 or SEV2 incidents
Permission review
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
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 82/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 38,313 | Source | Repository attention, not individual Skill quality |
| Compatibility | 0 platforms | Source | Declared in the catalog source record |
| Usage guide | automated source guide | Editorial | Generated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level |
Pinned source
Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence.
| Blame-Focused | Blameless |
|---|---|
| "Who caused this?" | "What conditions allowed this?" |
| "Someone made a mistake" | "The system allowed this mistake" |
| Punish individuals | Improve systems |
| Hide information | Share learnings |
| Fear of speaking up | Psychological safety |
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
Full template library and detailed worked examples live in references/details.md. Read that file when you need the concrete templates.
### 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 |
# 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.
## 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-Pattern | Problem | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Blame game | Shuts down learning | Focus on systems |
| Shallow analysis | Doesn't prevent recurrence | Ask "why" 5 times |
| No action items | Waste of time | Always have concrete next steps |
| Unrealistic actions | Never completed | Scope to achievable tasks |
| No follow-up | Actions forgotten | Track in ticketing system |
Alternatives
Jeffallan/claude-skills
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
affaan-m/ECC
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.
dpearson2699/swift-ios-skills
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.
affaan-m/ECC
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.