Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

incident-postmortem

Gera um postmortem ou revisão de incidente estruturado e sem culpa, incluindo cronograma, causa raiz, fatores contribuintes, resumo do impacto e itens de ação, para relatórios de incidentes como P1/P2 ou RCA.

991estrelas
Atualizado há 4 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗ Licença: MIT

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/incident-postmortem-mohitagw15856/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/incident-postmortem-mohitagw15856)
#ai

Skills relacionadas

Ver todas de DevOps e Infra →

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de DevOps e Infra toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de DevOps e Infra. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

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

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 postmortem from these notes: [paste notes]"
Compartilhar X LinkedIn