skills/postmortem/SKILL.md
Conducts blameless postmortems that transform failures into learning opportunities by documenting timelines, quantifying impact, performing root cause analysis (5 Whys, fishbone diagrams), and defining corrective actions with owners and deadlines. Use when analyzing failures, outages, incidents, or negative outcomes, conducting blameless postmortems, identifying corrective actions, learning from near-misses, establishing prevention strategies, or when user mentions postmortem, incident review, failure analysis, RCA, lessons learned, or after-action review.
npx skillsauth add lyndonkl/claude postmortemInstall 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.
When NOT to use: Incident still ongoing (focus on resolution first), looking to assign blame (antithesis of blameless culture), or issue is trivial with no learning value.
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Postmortem Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Assemble timeline and quantify impact
- [ ] Step 2: Conduct root cause analysis
- [ ] Step 3: Define corrective and preventive actions
- [ ] Step 4: Document and share postmortem
- [ ] Step 5: Track action items to completion
Step 1: Assemble timeline and quantify impact
Gather facts: when detected, when started, key events, when resolved. Quantify impact: users affected, duration, revenue/SLA impact, customer complaints. For straightforward incidents use resources/template.md. For complex incidents with multiple causes or cascading failures, study resources/methodology.md for advanced timeline reconstruction techniques.
Step 2: Conduct root cause analysis
Ask "Why?" 5 times to get from symptom to root cause, or use fishbone diagram for complex incidents with multiple contributing factors. See Root Cause Analysis Techniques for guidance. Focus on system failures (process gaps, missing safeguards) not human errors.
Step 3: Define corrective and preventive actions
For each root cause, identify actions to prevent recurrence. Must be specific (not "improve testing"), owned (named person), and time-bound (deadline). Categorize as immediate fixes vs. long-term improvements. See Corrective Actions for framework.
Step 4: Document and share postmortem
Create postmortem document using template. Include timeline, impact, root cause, actions, what went well. Share widely (engineering, product, leadership) to enable learning. Present in team meeting for discussion. Archive in knowledge base.
Step 5: Track action items to completion
Assign owners, set deadlines, add to project tracker. Review progress in standups or weekly meetings. Close postmortem only when all actions complete. Self-assess quality using resources/evaluators/rubric_postmortem.json. Minimum standard: ≥3.5 average score.
Production Outages (system failures, downtime):
Security Incidents (breaches, vulnerabilities):
Product/Project Failures (launches, deadlines):
Process Failures (operational, procedural):
Human Error (surface cause, dig deeper):
Process Gap (missing or unclear procedures):
Technical Debt (deferred maintenance):
External Dependencies (third-party failures):
Systemic Issues (organizational, cultural):
5 Whys:
Example: Database outage → Why? Bad config → Why? Wrong value → Why? Template error → Why? New team member unfamiliar → Why? No config review in onboarding
Fishbone Diagram (Ishikawa):
Fault Tree Analysis:
Types of Actions:
SMART Actions:
Prioritization:
Prevention Hierarchy (from most to least effective):
Blameless Culture:
Root Cause Depth:
Actionability:
Impact Quantification:
Timeliness:
Resources:
Success Criteria:
Common Mistakes:
testing
--- name: advisory-edit description: A strict advisory-only editing discipline for a writer who dictates ("speaks out") essays and wants help WITHOUT having their voice changed. The editor directs structure, flags grammar, and suggests strategic language — but never modifies the writer's text unless the writer explicitly says "apply" / "make that change" / "rewrite this." Produces a line-referenced, suggestion-only critique where every item is marked the writer's call. Four passes: structural, l
testing
Provides the house style for analyst-grade strategist writing — third-person register with sparing first-person, no em dashes, no "not X, not Y, not Z" negation cascades, numbered footnote citations rather than inline source parentheticals, specific opinion-signaling phrases, and topic-forward paragraph structure modeled on voice patterns observed in Damodaran's Musings on Markets and Thompson's Stratechery. Use when consolidating working notes into a finished long-form strategist or analyst report that must read as written by a senior human analyst rather than an AI assistant.
testing
Renders a markdown report to a PDF using pandoc with xelatex (11pt serif body, 1-inch margins, numbered footnotes, formal heading hierarchy). Requires a one-time install of pandoc and a LaTeX engine on the user's machine — basictex on macOS or texlive-xetex on Linux. Does not attempt automatic install. Fails loudly with the exact install commands if pandoc or xelatex is missing on the user's PATH. Use when producing a finished strategist or analyst report PDF from a polished markdown source.
testing
Produces step-by-step computational walkthroughs of vector and matrix operations as a sequence of numbered "frames", showing the explicit state at each step. The text-equivalent of a 3Blue1Brown animation — each frame shows what changed and why, so the learner can re-trace the operation by hand. Use when the learner needs to *see* a computation unfold (eigenvalue computation, attention with 3 tokens, gradient descent step, SVD on a 2×2, layer norm on a 3-vector, softmax of a small input), when an explanation has been given but the learner needs to ground it in a worked example, or when introducing an operation that's intimidating in symbol form but trivial in pencil-and-paper form.