incident-postmortem
This skill generates a complete, blameless incident postmortem document following industry standards, including executive summary, impact analysis, chronological timeline, root cause identification, contributing factors, and action items. Use it when documenting any incident, outage, P1/P2/P3 review, or root cause analysis to ensure consistent, blameless framing that emphasizes system gaps over individual failures and drives toward specific, closeable remediation actions.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/incident-postmortem && cp -r /tmp/incident-postmortem/plugins/pm-engineering/skills/incident-postmortem ~/.claude/skills/incident-postmortemSKILL.md
# Incident Postmortem Skill This skill produces a complete, blameless incident postmortem document following industry-standard format. Output enforces blameless framing throughout — system gaps over individual failures — and drives toward specific, closeable action items rather than vague process commitments. ## Required Inputs Ask the user for these if not provided: - **Incident title / ID** - **Severity** (P1 / P2 / P3 or SEV1 / SEV2 / SEV3) - **Date and duration** of the incident - **What happened** (rough notes are fine — the skill will structure them) - **Services or systems affected** - **Customer impact** (how many users, what was degraded) - **How it was detected** - **How it was resolved** - **Initial thoughts on root cause** - **Action items already identified** (optional) - **Responders** (who was on-call or responded — names or roles; used for the timeline, not for blame) - **Customer or external communications sent** (optional — any status page updates, emails, or support messages with timestamps) ## Output Format --- # Incident Postmortem: [Incident Title] **Incident ID:** [ID] **Severity:** [P1/P2/P3] **Date:** [Date] **Duration:** [Start time → Resolution time — total duration] **Status:** [Resolved / Monitoring / Ongoing] **Author:** [Leave blank for user to fill] **Last updated:** [Date] --- ## Executive Summary [3–5 sentences. Describe what happened, who was affected, and what was done to resolve it. Written for a non-technical stakeholder. No jargon. No blame.] --- ## Impact | Dimension | Details | |---|---| | **Users affected** | [Number or percentage] | | **Services degraded** | [List affected services] | | **Business impact** | [Revenue, SLA breach, support tickets, etc. if known] | | **Duration** | [Total time from first detection to full resolution] | --- ## Timeline List events in chronological order. Each entry: `[HH:MM UTC] — [What happened. Who did what. What changed.]` Rules for timeline entries: - Use passive or system-focused language — avoid "X made a mistake" - Include: first symptom, detection, escalation, hypothesis tested, fix applied, confirmation of resolution - Note time between key events (e.g. "22 minutes between detection and escalation") --- ## Root Cause **Primary root cause:** [One clear sentence. Technical but plain. "A misconfigured deployment config caused..."] **Contributing factors:** - [Factor 1 — e.g. lack of canary deployment meant change hit 100% of traffic immediately] - [Factor 2 — e.g. alert threshold was set too high to catch the initial degradation] - [Factor 3 — add as many as are relevant] **Why did our existing safeguards not prevent this?** [Honest paragraph explaining why monitoring, tests, or processes didn't catch this earlier. This is where blameless analysis matters most — focus on system gaps, not individual failures.] --- ## Detection - **How was it first detected?** [Customer report / automated alert / internal monitoring / manual observation] - **Time from incident start to detection:** [X minutes] - **Should we have detected this faster?** [Yes / No — and why] --- ## Resolution **What fixed it?** [Clear description of the actual fix — one paragraph] **Why did this work?** [Brief technical explanation] **Was there a temporary mitigation before full resolution?** [Yes/No — describe if yes] --- ## Action Items | # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | [Specific, testable action] | [Team or person] | [Date] | P1/P2/P3 | Rules for action items: - Each action must be specific enough to close as "done" or "not done" — no vague items like "improve monitoring" - Distinguish between: **Prevent recurrence** (fix the root cause), **Improve detection** (catch it faster next time), **Improve response** (resolve it faster next time) - Assign a real owner — not "team" or "TBD" if avoidable - Flag P1 actions as items that block the incident from being marked fully closed --- ## What Went Well [3–5 honest observations about the response. Include: fast collaboration, good runbooks used, effective escalation, clear communication. This section builds team confidence and reinforces good habits.] --- ## Lessons Learned [3–5 key insights from this incident that are worth sharing beyond this team. Write these as transferable lessons — e.g. "Our runbook for database failover didn't account for read-replica lag. All runbooks involving database failover should be reviewed."] --- ## Communication Log [Optional — list external communications sent: status page updates, customer emails, support responses. Include timestamps.] --- ## Quality Checks - [ ] Timeline has no blame-focused language - [ ] Root cause is specific (not "human error") - [ ] Root cause answers "why did this happen?" not just "what happened?" — it names a system or process gap, not a symptom - [ ] Contributing factors explain the systemic gaps - [ ] Every action item has an owner and due date - [ ] "What went well" section is genuine, not token - [ ] No action item contains vague language like "improve monitoring", "increase resilience", or "better testing" — each must name a specific change - [ ] Executive summary is readable by non-technical leadership ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not assign blame to individuals — postmortems must focus on system and process failures - [ ] Do not write action items with vague language like "improve monitoring" — each must name a specific, ownable change - [ ] Do not skip the contributing factors — root cause alone misses the systemic issues that enable incidents - [ ] Do not omit the detection timeline — how long it took to detect matters as much as how long it took to resolve - [ ] Do not treat the postmortem as closed until all action items have named owners and due dates ## Usage Examples - "Write a postmortem for the [incident name] outage" - "Help me write a P1 incident report" - "Generate an RCA document for [service] going down on [date]" - "Draft a blameless
Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.
Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.
Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.
Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.
Plan a trip that actually works with a disability or access need — confirm real accessibility (not just 'accessible' labels), book the assistance in advance, plan for equipment and medication, and build in the contingencies for when access breaks down. Use when someone says 'plan an accessible trip', 'travelling with a wheelchair/disability', 'book assistance for my flight', or 'will this hotel actually work for me'. Produces an access-verified itinerary, an assistance-booking checklist, an equipment/medication plan, and contingency scripts. Verify specifics with providers.
Request a reasonable accommodation at work or in education — frame it around the barrier and the adjustment (not your diagnosis), cite the right process, and navigate the back-and-forth constructively. Use when someone says 'I need a workplace accommodation', 'request reasonable adjustments', 'ADA/Equality Act accommodation', or 'how do I ask for accommodations for my disability/condition'. Produces the request letter, a barriers-and-adjustments map, disclosure guidance, and a plan for the interactive process. Not legal advice — routes to the formal process and to advocacy where needed.
Build a structured account plan for any key customer or target account. Use when asked to create an account plan, key account strategy, strategic account review, or territory plan. Produces a complete account plan with relationship map, growth opportunities, risks, and 90-day action plan.