Best for
- Production outage or service degradation has been resolved
- A significant near-miss occurred (would have been an incident if caught later)
- User-facing errors, data loss, or SLA breach happened
github/awesome-copilot/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md
Use when an outage, production incident, or significant service degradation has occurred and the team needs to write a structured blameless post-mortem. Triggers on phrases like "write a post-mortem", "incident review", "what went wrong", "outage report", "root cause analysis", or "RCA". Covers timeline reconstruction, contributing factor analysis, impact quantification, and action item generation with owners.
Decision brief
Guide a team through writing a structured, blameless post-mortem after a production incident. The output is a document that builds shared understanding, identifies root causes without blame, and produces concrete action items to prevent 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/github/awesome-copilot --skill "skills/incident-postmortem"Inspect the Agent Skill "incident-postmortem" from https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md at commit 9933dcad5be5caeb288cebcd370eeeb2fc2f1685. 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
If the user has not provided full incident details, ask for them section by section. Don't proceed to writing until you have: title, times, severity, affected services, and at least a rough timeline.
If the user has not provided full incident details, ask for them section by section. Don't proceed to writing until you have: title, times, severity, affected services, and at least a rough timeline.
Work with the user to build a precise chronological timeline. For each event: - Exact time (UTC preferred) - What happened (system event or human action) - Who observed it or took the action - Link to log / alert / Slack message if available
Use the 5 Whys iteratively:
Help the user be precise: - Duration: detection to resolution (not symptom start to resolution — separate these) - Error rate at peak vs. normal baseline - Percentage of traffic affected - Revenue / business impact if known
Permission review
No configured static risk pattern was detected
This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.
Evidence record
| Signal | Value | Evidence type | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality score | 88/100 | Computed | Documentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules |
| Repository stars | 37,126 | 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
Guide a team through writing a structured, blameless post-mortem after a production incident. The output is a document that builds shared understanding, identifies root causes without blame, and produces concrete action items to prevent recurrence.
Systems fail, not people. The goal is to understand HOW the incident happened — not WHO caused it. Avoid language like "X forgot to", "Y should have known". Use "the system did not", "the process lacked", "the alert did not fire".
Not for: Minor bugs caught in staging, planned maintenance windows, or incidents with no learning value.
Gather these details before writing the post-mortem. Ask for anything missing:
Key moments to reconstruct:
Ask the team: "What made this worse than it needed to be?" — not "who failed". Examples:
If the user has not provided full incident details, ask for them section by section. Don't proceed to writing until you have: title, times, severity, affected services, and at least a rough timeline.
Work with the user to build a precise chronological timeline. For each event:
Flag gaps: "We don't know what happened between 14:32 and 14:47 — worth checking logs."
Use the 5 Whys iteratively:
Why did users see 500 errors?
→ The API pods were crash-looping.
Why were they crash-looping?
→ Memory limit was exceeded.
Why was the limit exceeded?
→ A new query was loading full result sets into memory.
Why wasn't this caught before deploy?
→ Load tests only covered the p50 case, not high-cardinality accounts.
Why did load tests only cover p50?
→ We had no test fixtures for large accounts.
Stop when you reach a system/process gap you can fix. The last "why" should point to an action item.
Distinguish:
Help the user be precise:
For each root cause and contributing factor, generate at least one action item:
| # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Add load test fixtures for accounts > 10k records | @eng-team | 2026-07-01 | High |
| 2 | Lower memory alert threshold from 90% to 75% | @platform | 2026-06-23 | High |
| 3 | Add runbook for memory OOM pods | @on-call-rotation | 2026-06-30 | Medium |
Action items must have an owner (a person, not a team) and a due date. Vague actions like "improve monitoring" are not acceptable — break them into specific deliverables.
Produce the full post-mortem using the template below. Save to docs/postmortems/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md.
# Post-Mortem: [Incident Title]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Severity:** P[1-4]
**Duration:** X hours Y minutes (HH:MM UTC – HH:MM UTC)
**Incident Commander:** @name
**Status:** Resolved
---
## Summary
[2–3 sentences. What happened, what was the user impact, how was it resolved. Written for someone who wasn't involved.]
## Impact
| Dimension | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| Affected services | [list] |
| User-facing impact | [errors / degraded / full outage] |
| Users affected | [estimated number or %] |
| Peak error rate | [X% vs Y% baseline] |
| Data loss | [none / describe scope] |
| SLA breach | [yes/no — by how much] |
## Timeline
All times UTC.
| Time | Event |
|------|-------|
| HH:MM | [First symptom / alert fired] |
| HH:MM | [On-call paged] |
| HH:MM | [Incident declared] |
| HH:MM | [Root cause identified] |
| HH:MM | [Mitigation applied] |
| HH:MM | [Full resolution confirmed] |
| HH:MM | [Customer communication sent] |
## Root Cause
[1–2 paragraphs. The deepest systemic gap that, if fixed, would have prevented the incident. Written in blameless language. Reference the 5 Whys chain if helpful.]
## Contributing Factors
- [Factor 1 — condition that made the incident worse]
- [Factor 2]
- [Factor 3]
## What Went Well
- [Thing that worked — good alert, fast response, clear runbook]
- [Another positive]
## What Could Have Gone Better
- [Gap in process, tooling, or coverage — no blame language]
- [Another gap]
## Action Items
| # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority |
|---|--------|-------|----------|----------|
| 1 | [Specific deliverable] | @person | YYYY-MM-DD | High/Medium/Low |
| 2 | | | | |
## Lessons Learned
[Optional. 2–4 bullet points capturing non-obvious insights worth sharing with the broader team.]
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| "Bob forgot to check the config" | "The deploy checklist did not include config validation" |
| Root cause is "human error" | Keep asking Why — human error is always a symptom |
| Action items without owners | Every item needs a named individual, not a team |
| Timeline reconstructed from memory | Check logs, alerts, Slack, PagerDuty before writing |
| "Improve monitoring" as an action | Specify: which service, which metric, what threshold, by when |
| Post-mortem written weeks later | Write within 48–72 hours while context is fresh |
Alternatives
event4u-app/agent-config
Use when the user says "review the design", "check the UI", or wants a comprehensive UI/UX review. Uses a 7-phase methodology covering interaction, responsiveness, accessibility, and more.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Distributed computing for larger-than-RAM pandas/NumPy workflows. Use when you need to scale existing pandas/NumPy code beyond memory or across clusters. Best for parallel file processing, distributed ML, integration with existing pandas code. For out-of-core analytics on single machine use vaex; for in-memory speed use polars.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Use NeuroKit2 to build or audit reproducible research workflows for physiological time-series preprocessing, event/interval analysis, multimodal alignment, variability, and complexity. Trigger when code imports neurokit2 or needs its current APIs, schemas, and method-aware validation—not for diagnosis or device validation.
K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills
Comprehensive molecular biology toolkit. Use for sequence manipulation, file parsing (FASTA/GenBank/PDB), phylogenetics, and programmatic NCBI/PubMed access (Bio.Entrez). Best for batch processing, custom bioinformatics pipelines, BLAST automation. For quick lookups use gget; for multi-service integration use bioservices.