wshobson/agents

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.

82CollectingReads files
See how to use itView GitHub source
npx skills add https://github.com/wshobson/agents --skill "plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing"
Automated source guide

Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026

Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md

Turn postmortem-writing's source instructions into a guide you can follow

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"
Check the pinned source

Best fit

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

Bring this context

  • A concrete task that matches the documented purpose of postmortem-writing.
  • The files, examples, or context the task depends on.
  • Your constraints, target environment, and definition of done.

Expected outputs

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

Key source sections

Read postmortem-writing through these 5 source sections

Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.

01

Quick Start

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

SKILL.md · Quick Start
Review and apply the “Quick Start” source section.
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.

SKILL.md · 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.
04

When to Use This Skill

Conducting post-incident reviews

SKILL.md · When to Use This Skill
Conducting post-incident reviewsWriting postmortem documentsFacilitating blameless postmortem meetings
05

Core Concepts

SEV1 or SEV2 incidents

SKILL.md · Core Concepts
SEV1 or SEV2 incidentsCustomer-facing outages 15 minutesData loss or security incidents

SkillSignal prompt templates

Provide the task, context, and acceptance criteria

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

Verify each item before delivery

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

When another Skill is the better fit

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

A separate implementation from Jeffallan/claude-skills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

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.

A separate implementation from affaan-m/ECC; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

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.

A separate implementation from dpearson2699/swift-ios-skills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

FAQ

What does postmortem-writing do?

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

How do I start using postmortem-writing?

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.

Which Agent platforms does it declare?

No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.

Repository stars
38,313
Repository forks
4,098
Quality
82/100
Source repository last pushed

Quality breakdown

Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.

82/100
Documentation28/30
Specificity19/25
Maintenance18/20
Trust signals17/25

Compare before choosing

Related Agent Skills and source variants

These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.

code-reviewer by jeffallan

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

dmux-workflows by affaan-m

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.

swiftui-performance by dpearson2699

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.

dmux-workflows by affaan-m

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.

bug-fixing-openclaw by yun520-1

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

View original Skill.mdThis page is parsed directly from the repository SKILL.md without editorial rewriting. Collected: Jul 28, 2026 · about 4 min

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
Source repo
wshobson/agents
Skill path
plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.md
Commit SHA
c4b82b0ad771
Repository license
MIT
Data collected