Post mortem
Skill bromso/metapowers/plugins/project-management/skills/post-mortem
A Claude Code plugin that adds an agentic skills framework, with MCP's and a meta prompting processes. Inspired by "Superpowers" & "Figma Console MCP", but not just for development or design; but for all aspect within the digital production cycle.
npx -y skills add bromso/metapowers --skill post-mortemAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Conduct incident or project post-mortem with root cause analysis
SKILL.md
7.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Post-Mortem
Conduct a post-mortem for "$ARGUMENTS". Define the incident or event, build a timeline, perform root cause analysis using the 5 Whys technique, and produce corrective actions at multiple levels with owners and review dates.
Prerequisites
Check that .project/$ARGUMENTS/00-initiate.md exists. If it does not, tell the user to run an Initiate skill first (e.g., project-charter) and stop.
If the user passes --skip-checks, skip the prerequisite check and log the skip to .project/$ARGUMENTS/skip-log.md with a timestamp and reason.
Process
-
Read existing context:
- Read
.project/$ARGUMENTS/00-initiate.mdfor project context, team setup, and stakeholder information - Read
.project/$ARGUMENTS/03-review.mdif it exists (for sprint metrics and delivery data around the incident period) - Read
.project/$ARGUMENTS/04-improve.mdif it exists (for previous post-mortems, retrospective themes, and known risks) - Read
.project/$ARGUMENTS/02-sprint.mdif it exists (for standup history and blocker log around the incident period)
- Read
-
Define the incident or event:
- Ask the user to describe what happened — get the facts before analysis
- Document clearly:
- What happened — objective description of the incident or event
- When it happened — start time, detection time, resolution time, total duration
- Who was affected — users, customers, internal teams, stakeholders
- Impact — quantify where possible (users affected, revenue lost, data compromised, SLA breached)
- Severity — classify as critical (service down), major (significant degradation), minor (limited impact), or informational (near-miss)
- Distinguish between the symptoms (what was observed) and the incident itself (what actually went wrong)
-
Build timeline of events:
- Reconstruct the incident chronologically from earliest relevant event to resolution
- For each event in the timeline, document:
- Timestamp — when it happened (as precise as possible)
- What happened — factual description of the event
- Who was involved — which person or system took action or was affected
- Impact at this point — how the situation changed
- Key milestones to capture:
- When the conditions for the incident were first introduced (the seed)
- When the incident actually began (the trigger)
- When the incident was first detected (by monitoring, users, or team)
- When the first responder engaged
- What diagnostic steps were taken and in what order
- When the root cause was identified
- When the fix was applied
- When service was fully restored
- When the incident was formally closed
- Note any gaps in the timeline — periods where it is unclear what happened or why
-
Identify root causes using 5 Whys:
- Start with the incident statement and ask "Why did this happen?"
- For each answer, ask "Why?" again until reaching a systemic cause (typically 3-5 levels deep)
- Continue until the answer points to a process, system, or organizational issue — not a person's mistake
- Document each level of the 5 Whys chain clearly:
- Why 1: [symptom-level cause]
- Why 2: [deeper cause]
- Why 3: [process or system gap]
- Why 4: [organizational or structural cause]
- Why 5: [root cause — the systemic issue]
- If there are multiple causal chains (multiple contributing factors), run 5 Whys on each
- Stop when the answer is something the team or organization can actually change
-
Distinguish contributing factors from root causes:
- List all factors that contributed to the incident
- Classify each as:
- Root cause — the primary systemic issue that, if fixed, would have prevented the incident
- Contributing factor — made the incident worse or more likely, but was not the primary cause
- Mitigating factor — reduced the impact or duration of the incident
- There is usually 1-2 root causes and several contributing factors
- Common contributing factors: missing monitoring, unclear runbooks, single points of failure, inadequate testing, communication gaps
-
Define corrective actions at 3 levels:
- Immediate actions (fix the symptom):
- What was done to resolve this specific incident
- Any temporary measures in place (workarounds, manual processes, increased monitoring)
- Timeline for removing temporary measures
- Short-term actions (prevent recurrence):
- Specific changes to prevent this exact incident from happening again
- Examples: add monitoring alert, write a test for the failure case, update the runbook, fix the specific bug
- Target completion: within 1-2 sprints
- Long-term actions (fix the system):
- Structural changes to prevent this class of incidents
- Examples: improve deployment pipeline, add chaos testing, redesign the architecture for resilience, establish review processes
- Target completion: within 1-2 quarters
- Each action item must have an owner and a deadline
- Immediate actions (fix the symptom):
-
Identify what went well:
- Not everything in an incident is negative — capture the positives
- Examples of things that went well:
- Fast detection (monitoring worked as intended)
- Quick response (on-call engineer engaged promptly)
- Effective communication (stakeholders were informed, team coordinated well)
- Graceful degradation (system failed partially rather than completely)
- Good documentation (runbooks were helpful, previous post-mortems informed the response)
- Recognizing what went well builds team confidence and reinforces good practices
-
Write blameless summary:
- Write a concise summary of the incident and its resolution
- Focus on systems and processes, not individual people's mistakes
- Use language like "the process did not catch" rather than "person X failed to"
- Frame findings as opportunities to strengthen the system, not as failures
- Acknowledge that the people involved made reasonable decisions given the information they had at the time
- If human error was involved, ask what about the system made that error possible or likely
-
Assign action item owners and review dates:
- For each corrective action, assign a single owner (not a team — one person accountable)
- Set a specific review date for each action (when to check if it has been completed)
- Schedule a follow-up review meeting (typically 2-4 weeks after the post-mortem) to verify:
- Immediate actions are complete
- Short-term actions are in progress
- Long-term actions are planned and resourced
- Add action items to the team's backlog or issue tracker
-
Write the artifact — append to
.project/$ARGUMENTS/04-improve.mdunder a## Post-Mortem: [Incident/Event]section:- Incident Summary — blameless description of what happened, when, and impact
- Severity — classification with justification
- Timeline — chronological reconstruction of events
- Root Cause Analysis — 5 Whys chain(s) with root cause identification
- Contributing Factors — factors that made the incident worse or more likely
- What Went Well — positive aspects of detection, response, and resolution
- Corrective Actions — immediate, short-term, and long-term actions with owners and deadlines
- Follow-Up Review — date and agenda for the review meeting
Output
Post-mortem appended to .project/$ARGUMENTS/04-improve.md. Present a summary highlighting:
- Incident summary with severity and duration
- Root cause (one sentence)
- Number of corrective actions by level (immediate, short-term, long-term)
- What went well (top 1-2 positives)
- Follow-up review date