c-level-advisor/c-level-agents/skills/post-mortem/SKILL.md
/cs:post-mortem <decision> — Honest retrospective on an executed decision, scored against original assumptions and dissent. Closes the strategic sprint loop.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills post-mortemInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Command: /cs:post-mortem <decision-path>
Closes the strategic sprint loop. Scores a decision against the success and kill criteria written before the decision (not retro-fitted) and revisits the preserved dissent. This is the rigor that compounds over time.
/cs:office-hours → /cs:brief → /cs:boardroom → /cs:decide → /cs:execute → /cs:post-mortem
↑ you are here
/cs:decide)/cs:decide)/cs:execute)Saved to ~/.claude/postmortems/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md:
# Post-Mortem: <decision title>
**Decision date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Post-mortem date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Status:** WIN / PARTIAL / LOSS / MIXED
## Outcome Scoring (against pre-committed criteria)
| Success Criterion | Threshold | Actual | Met? |
|---|---|---|---|
| <metric 1> | <threshold> | <actual> | ✅ / ❌ |
| <metric 2> | <threshold> | <actual> | ✅ / ❌ |
| Kill Criterion | Threshold | Actual | Triggered? |
|---|---|---|---|
| <metric> | <threshold> | <actual> | ✅ / ❌ |
**Overall:** WIN / PARTIAL / LOSS / MIXED
## What We Got Right
- <factor 1>
- <factor 2>
## What We Got Wrong
- <factor 1>
- <factor 2>
## Preserved Dissent — Revisited
[Original dissent from the boardroom memo, scored:]
- **<dissenter>:** <original concern>
- **Did it materialize?** YES / NO / PARTIAL
- **Cost if YES:** <quantified impact>
- **Lesson:** <one sentence>
## Assumption Audit
[Original brief's assumptions, scored:]
- **Assumption 1:** <text>
- **Held?** YES / NO / PARTIAL
- **Why:** <explanation>
## Process Lessons
- **Phase 2 isolation worked?** YES / NO
- **Devil's advocate concerns played out?** YES / NO / PARTIAL
- **Cadence was right?** YES / TOO LOOSE / TOO TIGHT
## Forward Actions
- [ ] <change to operating system or routing logic>
- [ ] <new decision to make based on this learning>
- [ ] <update company-context.md>
## Status
- WIN → archive, log lesson
- LOSS → schedule follow-up boardroom: `/cs:brief` for the next call
The biggest temptation in post-mortems is retroactive justification: "we always knew X, that's why we did Y." Pre-committed criteria, signed at /cs:decide time, eliminate that move. The numbers either matched or they didn't.
The dissent column from /cs:boardroom is the single most useful piece of organizational memory. Most of the time, the dissenter was directionally right. Revisiting and scoring it builds calibration over years.
/cs:brief — if the post-mortem surfaces a new decision/cs:freeze — if the post-mortem reveals a process gap that needs cooldown enforcementcs-onboarddecision-loggercs-chief-of-staff/em:postmortem — adversarial single-decision post-mortemVersion: 1.0.0
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.