Best fit
- Conducting post-incident reviews
- Writing postmortem documents
- Facilitating blameless postmortem meetings
wshobson/agents
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.
npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing"Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026
Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md
According to the pinned SKILL.md from wshobson/agents: Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence.
npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing"Best fit
Bring this context
Expected outputs
Key source sections
Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.
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
SkillSignal prompt templates
These prompts were written by SkillSignal from the source structure; they are not upstream text.
Task-start prompt
Confirm source fit, inputs, and outputs before acting.
Use postmortem-writing to help me with: [specific task]. Context: [files, data, or background]. Constraints: [environment, scope, and prohibited actions]. Before acting, check the pinned SKILL.md and explain which sections apply, what inputs are still missing, and what you will deliver.
Source-guided execution
Make the Agent explicitly follow the key extracted sections.
Apply the pinned postmortem-writing source to [task]. Pay particular attention to these source sections: “Quick Start”, “Why 4: Why wasn't this caught in code review?”, “2. Timeline Review (15 min)”, “When to Use This Skill”, “Core Concepts”. Preserve the important decision at each step. Mark facts not covered by the source as “needs confirmation” instead of inventing them. Then verify the result against my acceptance criteria: [criteria].
Result-review prompt
Check omissions, permissions, and source drift before delivery.
Review the current postmortem-writing result: (1) does it satisfy the original task; (2) were any applicable steps or limits in the pinned SKILL.md missed; (3) did it perform any unauthorized file, command, network, or data action; and (4) which conclusions remain unverified? List issues first, then fix only what the source or user authorization supports.
Output checklist
The task matches the purpose documented in the SKILL.md.
The source section “Quick Start” has been checked.
The source section “Why 4: Why wasn't this caught in code review?” has been checked.
The source section “2. Timeline Review (15 min)” has been checked.
The source section “When to Use This Skill” has been checked.
Inputs, constraints, and acceptance criteria are explicit.
Unverified facts, compatibility, and outcome claims are clearly marked.
Any file, command, network, or data action has been reviewed.
Choose a different workflow
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
A separate implementation from Jeffallan/claude-skills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailMulti-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.
A separate implementation from affaan-m/ECC; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailProfile, 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.
A separate implementation from dpearson2699/swift-ios-skills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.
Open source detailFAQ
Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence.
The catalog detected this source-specific install command: npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.
No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.
Quality breakdown
Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.
Compare before choosing
These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.
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
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.
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.
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.
Zero-regression bug fix workflow: triage → reproduce → root cause → impact analysis → fix → verify → knowledge deposit → self-reflect. Use when: - Feature broken, incorrect behavior, wrong output, errors/exceptions - Console errors/warnings even when feature appears functional - Regressions, timeouts, degraded performance - Keywords: "fix bug", "debug", "not working", "error", "broken" Output: Bug summary + verification report + code review + self-reflection score. Not for: new features (use ful
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 |