incident-postmortem — GitHub Copilot skill: incident write-ups
Guides a team through a blameless write-up of a production outage: timeline, five whys, impact numbers, and follow-up work with named owners.
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill incident-postmortemWhat incident-postmortem does
The skill walks a team through a production incident in order: metadata and impact figures first, then the chronology, then five whys down to a systemic cause, then the action table. It ships as one instruction set plus a document template covering the summary, impact table, UTC timeline, root cause, contributing factors, what went well and what could have gone better.
The framing is blameless. Where a draft says someone forgot a config check, the template pushes for the process gap behind it, so the review does not turn into a hunt for a culprit. Human error does not count as a root cause here; the questions keep going until they land on a gap somebody can close.
It will not start writing straight away. Without a title, detection and resolution times, severity, affected services and at least a rough timeline, it asks for those section by section, so have them at hand. Minor bugs caught in staging and planned maintenance windows fall outside what the skill is for. Output goes to docs/postmortems/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md, and each action item needs a named person and a due date.
What it helps with
- rebuild an incident timeline from logs and chat messages
- trace a failure to a systemic cause with five whys
- quantify impact: peak error rate, traffic share, data loss
- assign every follow-up to a named owner with a due date
- rewrite a blame-heavy draft into neutral system language
Example prompts for the agent
- Write a post-mortem for today's production outage, I'll paste the timeline and metrics next
- Run an RCA on the API failure and give me the root cause plus contributing factors
- Review this incident without blame and turn it into action items with owners and dates
How to install incident-postmortem
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill incident-postmortem2GitHub CLI
gh skill install github/awesome-copilot incident-postmortem3Manually: put the files in place
.github/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill incident-postmortem -a claude-code2Manually: put the files in place
~/.claude/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.mdCopy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/incident-postmortem/
Manually: put the files in place
.agents/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.mdFor all projects use ~/.agents/skills/
Manually: put the files in place
.cursor/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.mdCursor also reads .agents/skills/ and .claude/skills/
Platform CLI
gemini skills install https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot --path skills/incident-postmortemManually: put the files in place
.devin/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.mdThe legacy .windsurf/skills/ path still works
Claude.ai
Zip the folder and upload it in Settings → Capabilities → Skills
From the same set554
The whole set →Similar
Questions about incident-postmortem
How do I install incident-postmortem in GitHub Copilot?
Run npx skills add github/awesome-copilot --skill incident-postmortem. The skill then sits at .github/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md.
What does incident-postmortem do?
It helps a team write a structured post-mortem after an outage or notable service degradation: gather metadata, reconstruct the timeline, find the root cause and produce action items with owners.
Does it work for a bug caught in staging?
No, minor staging bugs and planned maintenance windows are out of scope. The skill targets an outage, service degradation or a near-miss where there is something to learn.
Source text
SKILL.md · MIT
--- name: incident-postmortem description: 'Use when an outage, production incident, or significant service degradation has occurred and the team needs to write a structured blameless post-mortem. Triggers on phrases like "write a post-mortem", "incident review", "what went wrong", "outage report", "root cause analysis", or "RCA". Covers timeline reconstruction, contributing factor analysis, impact quantification, and action item generation with owners.' --- # Incident Post-Mortem Guide a team through writing a structured, blameless post-mortem after a production incident. The output is a document that builds shared understanding, identifies root causes without blame, and produces concrete action items to prevent recurrence. ## Blameless Principle Systems fail, not people. The goal is to understand HOW the incident happened — not WHO caused it. Avoid language like "X forgot to", "Y should have known". Use "the system did not", "the process lacked", "the alert did not fire". ## When to Use - Production outage or service degradation has been resolved - A significant near-miss occurred (would have been an incident if caught later) - User-facing errors, data loss, or SLA breach happened - Team wants to capture learnings before context fades **Not for:** Minor bugs caught in staging, planned maintenance windows, or incidents with no learning value. ## Input Requirements Gather these details before writing the post-mortem. Ask for anything missing: ### Incident Metadata - Incident title (short, descriptive) - Date and time of detection (with timezone) - Date and time of resolution - Severity / impact level (P1–P4 or equivalent) - Incident commander / on-call owner ### Impact - Affected services and systems - User-facing impact (errors, slowness, full outage) - Estimated number of users affected - Data loss or corruption (yes/no, scope) - SLA/SLO breach (yes/no, by how much) ### Timeline Events Key moments to reconstruct: - First symptom occurred - Alert fired (or was noticed manually) - On-call paged / incident declared - Investigation started - Root cause identified - Mitigation applied - Full resolution confirmed - Customer communication sent (if any) ### Contributing Factors Ask the team: "What made this worse than it needed to be?" — not "who failed". Examples: - Alert threshold too high / alert didn't fire - Runbook was missing or outdated - Deploy lacked a feature flag for rollback - Monitoring didn't cover this failure mode - On-call handoff missed context ## Process ### Step 1 — Gather Metadata If the user has not provided full incident details, ask for them section by section. Don't proceed to writing until you have: title, times, severity, affected services, and at least a rough timeline. ### Step 2 — Reconstruct Timeline Work with the user to build a precise chronological timeline. For each event: - Exact time (UTC preferred) - What happened (system event or human action) - Who observed it or took the action - Link to log / alert / Slack message if available Flag gaps: "We don't know what happened between 14:32 and 14:47 — worth checking logs." ### Step 3 — Root Cause Analysis Use the **5 Whys** iteratively: ``` Why did users see 500 errors? → The API pods were crash-looping. Why were they crash-looping? → Memory limit was exceeded. Why was the limit exceeded? → A new query was loading full result sets into memory. Why wasn't this caught before deploy? → Load tests only covered the p50 case, not high-cardinality accounts. Why did load tests only cover p50? → We had no test fixtures for large accounts. ``` Stop when you reach a system/process gap you can fix. The last "why" should point to an action item. Distinguish: - **Root cause** — the deepest systemic gap (one or two) - **Contributing factors** — conditions that made it worse but aren't the root cause ### Step 4 — Impact Quantification Help the user be precise: - Duration: detection to resolution (not symptom start to resolution — separate these) - Error rate at peak vs. normal baseline - Percentage of traffic affected - Revenue / business impact if known ### Step 5 — Action Items For each root cause and contributing factor, generate at least one action item: | # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority | |---|--------|-------|----------|----------| | 1 | Add load test fixtures for accounts > 10k records | @eng-team | 2026-07-01 | High | | 2 | Lower memory alert threshold from 90% to 75% | @platform | 2026-06-23 | High | | 3 | Add runbook for memory OOM pods | @on-call-rotation | 2026-06-30 | Medium | Action items must have an owner (a person, not a team) and a due date. Vague actions like "improve monitoring" are not acceptable — break them into specific deliverables. ### Step 6 — Write the Document Produce the full post-mortem using the template below. Save to `docs/postmortems/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md`. ## Output Template ```markdown # Post-Mortem: [Incident Title] **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Severity:** P[1-4] **Duration:** X hours Y minutes (HH:MM UTC – HH:MM UTC) **Incident Commander:** @name **Status:** Resolved --- ## Summary [2–3 sentences. What happened, what was the user impact, how was it resolved. Written for someone who wasn't involved.] ## Impact | Dimension | Value | |-----------|-------| | Affected services | [list] | | User-facing impact | [errors / degraded / full outage] | | Users affected | [estimated number or %] | | Peak error rate | [X% vs Y% baseline] | | Data loss | [none / describe scope] | | SLA breach | [yes/no — by how much] | ## Timeline All times UTC. | Time | Event | |------|-------| | HH:MM | [First symptom / alert fired] | | HH:MM | [On-call paged] | | HH:MM | [Incident declared] | | HH:MM | [Root cause identified] | | HH:MM | [Mitigation applied] | | HH:MM | [Full resolution confirmed] | | HH:MM | [Customer communication sent] | ## Root Cause [1–2 paragraphs. The deepest systemic gap that, if fixed, would have prevented the incident. Written in blameless language. Reference the 5 Whys chain if helpful.] ## Contributing Factors - [Factor 1 — condition that made the incident worse] - [Factor 2] - [Factor 3] ## What Went Well - [Thing that worked — good alert, fast response, clear runbook] - [Another positive] ## What Could Have Gone Better - [Gap in process, tooling, or coverage — no blame language] - [Another gap] ## Action Items | # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority | |---|--------|-------|----------|----------| | 1 | [Specific deliverable] | @person | YYYY-MM-DD | High/Medium/Low | | 2 | | | | | ## Lessons Learned [Optional. 2–4 bullet points capturing non-obvious insights worth sharing with the broader team.] ``` ## Common Mistakes | Mistake | Fix | |---------|-----| | "Bob forgot to check the config" | "The deploy checklist did not include config validation" | | Root cause is "human error" | Keep asking Why — human error is always a symptom | | Action items without owners | Every item needs a named individual, not a team | | Timeline reconstructed from memory | Check logs, alerts, Slack, PagerDuty before writing | | "Improve monitoring" as an action | Specify: which service, which metric, what threshold, by when | | Post-mortem written weeks later | Write within 48–72 hours while context is fresh |
© github · MIT · github/awesome-copilot