postmortem-writing
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.
What this skill does
# 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. ## References - [Connection Pool Best Practices](internal-wiki/connection-pools) - [Deployment Runbook](internal-wiki/deployment-runbook) ``` ### 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
Related in Writing & Docs
jax-development
IncludedUse this skill when the user is writing, debugging, profiling, refactoring, reviewing, benchmarking, parallelising, exporting, or explaining JAX code, or when they mention JAX, jax.numpy, jit, grad, value_and_grad, vmap, scan, lax, random keys, pytrees, jax.Array, sharding, Mesh, PartitionSpec, NamedSharding, pmap, shard_map, Pallas, XLA, StableHLO, checkify, profiler, or the JAX repo. It helps turn NumPy or PyTorch-style code into pure functional JAX, fix tracer/control-flow/shape/PRNG bugs, remove recompiles and host-device syncs, choose transforms and sharding strategies, inspect jaxpr/lowering/IR, and benchmark compiled code correctly.
nature-article-writer
IncludedDrafts, rewrites, diagnostically critiques, and style-calibrates primary research manuscripts for Nature and Nature Portfolio journals. Use when the user wants a Nature-style title, summary paragraph or abstract, introduction, results, discussion, methods, figure legends, presubmission enquiry, cover letter, reviewer response, or when a scientific draft sounds generic, jargon-heavy, structurally weak, or AI-ish and needs precise, broad-reader-friendly prose without inventing data, analyses, or references. Best for primary research articles and letters rather than reviews or press releases unless explicitly adapting one.
deckrd
IncludedDocument-driven framework that derives requirements, specifications, implementation plans, and executable tasks from goals through structured AI dialogue. Use when user says "write requirements", "create spec", "plan implementation", "derive tasks", "structure this feature", "break down into tasks", or "document this module". Also use for reverse engineering existing code into docs (/deckrd rev). Do NOT use for direct code writing — use /deckrd-coder after tasks are generated. Do NOT use when the user only wants to run or fix existing code without planning.
clinical-decision-support
IncludedGenerate professional clinical decision support (CDS) documents for pharmaceutical and clinical research settings, including patient cohort analyses (biomarker-stratified with outcomes) and treatment recommendation reports (evidence-based guidelines with decision algorithms). Supports GRADE evidence grading, statistical analysis (hazard ratios, survival curves, waterfall plots), biomarker integration, and regulatory compliance. Outputs publication-ready LaTeX/PDF format optimized for drug development, clinical research, and evidence synthesis.
handling-sf-data
IncludedSalesforce data operations with 130-point scoring. Use this skill to create, update, delete, bulk import/export, generate test data, and clean up org records using sf CLI and anonymous Apex. TRIGGER when: user creates test data, performs bulk import/export, uses sf data CLI commands, needs data factory patterns for Apex tests, or needs to seed/clean records in a Salesforce org. DO NOT TRIGGER when: SOQL query writing only (use querying-soql), Apex test execution (use running-apex-tests), or metadata deployment (use deploying-metadata).
accelint-ac-to-playwright
IncludedConvert and validate acceptance criteria for Playwright test automation. Use when user asks to (1) review/evaluate/check if AC are ready for automation, (2) assess if AC can be converted as-is, (3) validate AC quality for Playwright, (4) turn AC into tests, (5) generate tests from acceptance criteria, (6) convert .md bullets or .feature Gherkin files to Playwright specs, (7) create test automation from requirements. Handles both bullet-style markdown and Gherkin syntax with JSON test plan generation and validation.