postmortem-writing — скилл для Claude Code: установка
Скилл помогает разбирать инциденты без поиска виноватых: собрать таймлайн, найти корневые причины и оформить задачи для исправления.
/plugin marketplace add wshobson/agents
/plugin install incident-response@claude-code-workflowsЧто делает postmortem-writing
postmortem-writing ведёт разбор инцидента от событий к причинам и действиям. Он предлагает безвинный формат обсуждения, таймлайн, анализ «5 почему», фиксацию факторов, которые сделали сбой возможным, и конкретные follow-up-задачи с ответственными и сроками.
Внутри есть шаблоны для подробного и короткого постмортема, план встречи и советы фасилитатору. Отдельные примеры и полная библиотека шаблонов находятся в references/details.md. Скилл подходит для SEV1 и SEV2, пользовательских сбоев, потери данных, инцидентов безопасности и близких к сбою случаев.
Ставьте его, если команда регулярно проводит разборы и хочет доводить действия до выполнения. Для простого описания единичного сбоя он избыточен.
Какие задачи решает
- собрать таймлайн инцидента
- найти корневые и способствующие причины
- провести встречу без поиска виноватых
- сформировать задачи с ответственными и сроками
- отследить повторяющиеся причины сбоев
Примеры запросов агенту
- Составь постмортем по этому инциденту и начни с таймлайна.
- Проведи анализ «5 почему» для сбоя API и отдели корневые причины от факторов.
- Подготовь план встречи по постмортему и список action items.
Как установить postmortem-writing
1Через маркетплейс плагинов
/plugin marketplace add wshobson/agents/plugin install incident-response@claude-code-workflowsКоманда ставит плагин incident-response целиком, со всеми его скиллами
2Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill postmortem-writing -a claude-code3Вручную: положить файлы
~/.claude/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.mdПапка скилла целиком; для одного проекта — .claude/skills/postmortem-writing/
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill postmortem-writing -a codex2Вручную: положить файлы
.agents/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.mdДля всех проектов — ~/.agents/skills/
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill postmortem-writing -a cursor2Вручную: положить файлы
.cursor/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.mdCursor читает и .agents/skills/, и .claude/skills/
1GitHub CLI
gh skill install wshobson/agents postmortem-writing2Вручную: положить файлы
.github/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.mdКомандой платформы
gemini skills install https://github.com/wshobson/agents --path plugins/incident-response/skills/postmortem-writingВручную: положить файлы
.devin/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.mdСтарый путь .windsurf/skills/ тоже читается
Claude.ai
Упакуйте папку в zip и загрузите в Settings → Capabilities → Skills
Из того же набора213
Весь набор →Похожие
Вопросы о postmortem-writing
Как установить postmortem-writing в Claude Code?
Выполните npx skills add wshobson/agents --skill postmortem-writing -a claude-code. Для установки через marketplace используйте /plugin marketplace add wshobson/agents, затем /plugin install incident-response@claude-code-workflows.
Что делает postmortem-writing?
Скилл помогает оформить разбор инцидента: восстановить последовательность событий, провести анализ «5 почему», описать системные причины и создать конкретные действия для предотвращения повторения.
С какими платформами совместим postmortem-writing?
Скилл рассчитан на Claude Code, Codex и Cursor. Для Claude Code файл устанавливается в ~/.claude/skills/postmortem-writing/SKILL.md.
Исходный текст
SKILL.md · MIT
--- name: postmortem-writing description: Write effective blameless postmortems with root cause analysis, timelines, and action items. Use when conducting incident reviews, writing postmortem documents, or improving incident response processes. --- # Postmortem Writing Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence. ## When to Use This Skill - Conducting post-incident reviews - Writing postmortem documents - Facilitating blameless postmortem meetings - Identifying root causes and contributing factors - Creating actionable follow-up items - Building organizational learning culture ## Core Concepts ### 1. Blameless Culture | Blame-Focused | Blameless | | ------------------------ | --------------------------------- | | "Who caused this?" | "What conditions allowed this?" | | "Someone made a mistake" | "The system allowed this mistake" | | Punish individuals | Improve systems | | Hide information | Share learnings | | Fear of speaking up | Psychological safety | ### 2. Postmortem Triggers - SEV1 or SEV2 incidents - Customer-facing outages > 15 minutes - Data loss or security incidents - Near-misses that could have been severe - Novel failure modes - Incidents requiring unusual intervention ## Quick Start ### Postmortem Timeline ``` Day 0: Incident occurs Day 1-2: Draft postmortem document Day 3-5: Postmortem meeting Day 5-7: Finalize document, create tickets Week 2+: Action item completion Quarterly: Review patterns across incidents ``` ## Templates and detailed worked examples Full template library and detailed worked examples live in `references/details.md`. Read that file when you need the concrete templates. ### Template 2: 5 Whys Analysis ```markdown # 5 Whys Analysis: [Incident] ## Problem Statement Payment service experienced 47-minute outage due to database connection exhaustion. ## Analysis ### Why #1: Why did the service fail? **Answer**: Database connections were exhausted, causing all new requests to fail. **Evidence**: Metrics showed connection count at 100/100 (max), with 500+ pending requests. --- ### Why #2: Why were database connections exhausted? **Answer**: Each incoming request opened a new database connection instead of using the connection pool. **Evidence**: Code diff shows direct `DriverManager.getConnection()` instead of pooled `DataSource`. --- ### Why #3: Why did the code bypass the connection pool? **Answer**: A developer refactored the repository class and inadvertently changed the connection acquisition method. **Evidence**: PR #1234 shows the change, made while fixing a different bug. --- ### Why #4: Why wasn't this caught in code review? **Answer**: The reviewer focused on the functional change (the bug fix) and didn't notice the infrastructure change. **Evidence**: Review comments only discuss business logic. --- ### Why #5: Why isn't there a safety net for this type of change? **Answer**: We lack automated tests that verify connection pool behavior and lack documentation about our connection patterns. **Evidence**: Test suite has no tests for connection handling; wiki has no article on database connections. ## Root Causes Identified 1. **Primary**: Missing automated tests for infrastructure behavior 2. **Secondary**: Insufficient documentation of architectural patterns 3. **Tertiary**: Code review checklist doesn't include infrastructure considerations ## Systemic Improvements | Root Cause | Improvement | Type | | ------------- | --------------------------------- | ---------- | | Missing tests | Add infrastructure behavior tests | Prevention | | Missing docs | Document connection patterns | Prevention | | Review gaps | Update review checklist | Detection | | No canary | Implement canary deployments | Mitigation | ``` ### Template 3: Quick Postmortem (Minor Incidents) ```markdown # Quick Postmortem: [Brief Title] **Date**: 2024-01-15 | **Duration**: 12 min | **Severity**: SEV3 ## What Happened API latency spiked to 5s due to cache miss storm after cache flush. ## Timeline - 10:00 - Cache flush initiated for config update - 10:02 - Latency alerts fire - 10:05 - Identified as cache miss storm - 10:08 - Enabled cache warming - 10:12 - Latency normalized ## Root Cause Full cache flush for minor config update caused thundering herd. ## Fix - Immediate: Enabled cache warming - Long-term: Implement partial cache invalidation (ENG-999) ## Lessons Don't full-flush cache in production; use targeted invalidation. ``` ## Facilitation Guide ### Running a Postmortem Meeting ```markdown ## Meeting Structure (60 minutes) ### 1. Opening (5 min) - Remind everyone of blameless culture - "We're here to learn, not to blame" - Review meeting norms ### 2. Timeline Review (15 min) - Walk through events chronologically - Ask clarifying questions - Identify gaps in timeline ### 3. Analysis Discussion (20 min) - What failed? - Why did it fail? - What conditions allowed this? - What would have prevented it? ### 4. Action Items (15 min) - Brainstorm improvements - Prioritize by impact and effort - Assign owners and due dates ### 5. Closing (5 min) - Summarize key learnings - Confirm action item owners - Schedule follow-up if needed ## Facilitation Tips - Keep discussion on track - Redirect blame to systems - Encourage quiet participants - Document dissenting views - Time-box tangents ``` ## Anti-Patterns to Avoid | Anti-Pattern | Problem | Better Approach | | ----------------------- | -------------------------- | ------------------------------- | | **Blame game** | Shuts down learning | Focus on systems | | **Shallow analysis** | Doesn't prevent recurrence | Ask "why" 5 times | | **No action items** | Waste of time | Always have concrete next steps | | **Unrealistic actions** | Never completed | Scope to achievable tasks | | **No follow-up** | Actions forgotten | Track in ticketing system | ## Best Practices ### Do's - **Start immediately** - Memory fades fast - **Be specific** - Exact times, exact errors - **Include graphs** - Visual evidence - **Assign owners** - No orphan action items - **Share widely** - Organizational learning ### Don'ts - **Don't name and shame** - Ever - **Don't skip small incidents** - They reveal patterns - **Don't make it a blame doc** - That kills learning - **Don't create busywork** - Actions should be meaningful - **Don't skip follow-up** - Verify actions completed
© Seth Hobson · MIT · wshobson/agents