skills/premortem/SKILL.md
Run a premortem — imagine a project has failed and work backwards to identify risks before they happen
npx skillsauth add mattdurham/bob bob:premortemInstall 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.
You are facilitating a premortem for a project or change. A premortem is the opposite of a postmortem: instead of analyzing what went wrong after the fact, you imagine it is some point in the future and the project has already failed — then work backwards to identify the causes before they happen.
From Gary Klein (HBR, 2007): prospective hindsight — imagining an event has already occurred — increases the ability to identify reasons for future outcomes by 30%. Teams that run premortems catch risks that normal planning misses because people feel safe saying "this will fail because..." rather than arguing against a plan mid-meeting.
Ask the user for the following if not provided. Ask one at a time.
Frame it for the team (include this in output):
"It is [future date — end of the project]. The project has failed. Not just a little — it failed badly. Take a moment to picture it. Now: what happened?"
Generate a comprehensive list of potential failure causes across these categories:
Technical risks
Execution risks
Process risks
External risks
What could go right (but might not)
For each risk, assess:
Focus discussion on High/High and High/Medium items.
For each high-priority risk, define:
# Premortem: [Project Name]
**Date:** [today's date]
**Project timeline:** [start] → [end]
**Participants:** [names if provided]
---
## The Scenario
It is [end date]. The project has failed. Here's what went wrong...
---
## Risk Register
| # | Risk | Category | Likelihood | Impact | Priority |
| --- | ------------------ | --------- | ---------- | ------ | ----------- |
| 1 | [risk description] | Technical | High | High | 🔴 Critical |
| 2 | [risk description] | Execution | Medium | High | 🟠 High |
| 3 | [risk description] | Process | Low | Medium | 🟡 Medium |
| ... | | | | | |
**Priority key**: 🔴 Critical (H/H) · 🟠 High (H/M or M/H) · 🟡 Medium (M/M or L/H) · 🟢 Low
---
## Critical Risks — Mitigations
### 🔴 [Risk 1]
**Why this matters**: [explain the failure scenario]
**Mitigation**: [specific action to reduce likelihood or impact]
**Owner**: [name/team]
**Due**: [date — should be before project start or milestone]
### 🔴 [Risk 2]
...
---
## High Risks — Mitigations
### 🟠 [Risk N]
...
---
## Assumptions We're Relying On
These are things we're assuming will go right. If any of them break, the project is in trouble:
- [assumption] — _mitigation if wrong: [action]_
- ...
---
## What Could Go Right (That Might Not)
- [positive factor we're counting on] — _how to protect it: [action]_
- ...
---
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Priority | Due |
| ---------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | ------ |
| [specific preventive action] | [name] | [P1/P2/P3] | [date] |
| ... | | | |
---
## Revisit Schedule
- [ ] [date before project start] — confirm mitigations are in place
- [ ] [mid-project milestone] — review risks, add new ones
- [ ] [go-live minus 1 week] — final risk review
Encourage honesty: The premortem works because people feel safe stating concerns as "this failed because..." rather than arguing against the plan. Don't debate risks during brainstorm — capture everything first.
Dig into assumptions: The most dangerous risks are the ones the team isn't discussing. Ask "what are we assuming will just work?"
Focus on prevention, not prediction: The goal isn't to predict the future — it's to take actions now that reduce risk.
Distinguish likelihood from impact: A low-likelihood catastrophic risk (data loss, security breach) may warrant more mitigation than a high-likelihood minor risk.
Set a revisit date: A premortem isn't done once. Re-run it at major milestones or when scope changes significantly.
development
Team-based development workflow using experimental agent teams - INIT → WORKTREE → BRAINSTORM → PLAN → EXECUTE → REVIEW → COMPLETE
development
Implements code changes following plans and specifications
data-ai
Self-directed reviewer that claims completed tasks and reviews them incrementally
data-ai
Self-directed planner that claims a plan task (blocked by brainstorm), creates the implementation plan, and stays alive to answer questions from teammates