Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

pre-mortem(验尸前)

pre-mortem 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

pre-mortem 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 38,817。

总安装 1,505周安装 64GitHub Stars 103下载 527核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:pre-mortem(验尸前)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/pre-mortem
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill pre-mortem
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill pre-mortem

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

pre-mortem 通过前瞻性复盘识别潜在失败原因,使用 Tiger/Paper Tiger/Elephant 模型分类风险。适用于重大发布、架构变更前的预防性分析,避免“感觉不对”却无法定位的问题。输出可落地的缓解措施与优先级排序,提升项目成功率。需团队共同参与讨论,避免个体偏见主导风险评估结论。

pre-mortem 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

来源仓库内路径:skills/pre-mortem

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill pre-mortem;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

pre-mortem 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill pre-mortem。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

pre-mortem 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

pre-mortem 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

pre-mortem 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

pre-mortem 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,505 次,近一周安装 64 次,下载 527 次,GitHub 103 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

pre-mortem 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
pre-mortem

验尸前 · 本页

1,505103只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Pre-Mortem Risk Analysis Expert

Overview

A pre-mortem is a prospective hindsight exercise: imagine that your product has launched and failed, then work backward to identify why. This skill uses the Tiger / Paper Tiger / Elephant classification to categorize risks by type and urgency, ensuring launch-blocking issues are addressed before launch while avoiding wasted effort on unlikely risks.

When to Use

  • Before committing significant resources to build (post-ideation, post-validation).
  • Before a major launch, migration, or architectural change.
  • When the team has "a bad feeling" they cannot articulate.
  • When stakeholder confidence is high and you need to stress-test it.

Core Concept

The Thought Experiment

"It is 14 days after launch. The product has failed. What went wrong?"

This framing exploits a cognitive bias: people are better at explaining past events than predicting future ones. By placing the failure in the "past" (even fictitiously), participants generate more specific and honest risk assessments.

Risk Classification

Tigers (Real Risks)

Tigers are real, evidence-backed risks that could cause serious harm if not addressed.

Characteristics:

  • Supported by data, past experience, or observable trends.
  • The team can describe a plausible failure scenario in concrete terms.
  • Ignoring them would be negligent.

Examples:

  • "Our authentication service went down 3 times last month. A launch-day outage is plausible."
  • "We have zero customers in the enterprise segment. Our sales team has no enterprise relationships."
  • "The EU regulation takes effect in 60 days. We have not started compliance work."

Paper Tigers (Look Scary but Unlikely)

Paper Tigers are risks that sound alarming but, on closer inspection, are unlikely or have minimal real impact.

Characteristics:

  • Based on hypothetical scenarios without supporting evidence.
  • The probability is very low, or the impact would be manageable.
  • Often raised because of general anxiety rather than specific knowledge.

Examples:

  • "A competitor might copy our feature" -- possible, but their execution timeline is 6-12 months.
  • "The server might not handle 100x traffic" -- but our realistic projection is 5x, with auto-scaling.
  • "Users might hate the new UI" -- but usability testing with 8 users showed high satisfaction.

Elephants (Unspoken Concerns)

Elephants are the risks everyone knows about but nobody talks about. They are the "elephant in the room."

Characteristics:

  • The team avoids discussing them due to politics, hierarchy, or discomfort.
  • Often involve people, process, or organizational issues rather than technical ones.
  • Frequently the actual cause of failure when projects fail.

Examples:

  • "The tech lead does not believe in this project and has been disengaged for weeks."
  • "The CEO's pet feature is driving the roadmap, but customers have not asked for it."
  • "We do not have a plan for what happens when the contractor's contract ends next month."

Tiger Urgency Classification

Once a risk is classified as a Tiger, assign an urgency level:

UrgencyDefinitionAction Required
Launch-BlockingIf unresolved, the launch should not proceed.Concrete mitigation plan, assigned owner, decision date before launch.
Fast-FollowMust be addressed within 2 weeks after launch.Documented plan, assigned owner, scheduled for first post-launch sprint.
TrackShould be monitored and addressed if it escalates.Added to risk register, reviewed at regular cadence.

Methodology

Phase 1: Set the Scene (5 minutes)

The facilitator reads this prompt to the group:

"Imagine it is 14 days after our launch. The product has failed. Users are not adopting it, key metrics are down, and leadership is asking what went wrong. Take 10 minutes to write down every reason you can think of for why we failed. Be specific. Be honest. Nothing is off limits."

Ground rules:

  • Anonymous contributions (sticky notes or digital equivalent).
  • No attribution, no blame, no judgment.
  • Quantity over quality in the first round.

Phase 2: Generate Risks (10 minutes)

Each participant independently writes down failure scenarios. One risk per sticky note. Aim for 5-10 per person.

Prompts to stimulate thinking:

  • What technical system is most likely to break?
  • What customer objection have we not addressed?
  • What team dynamic could derail us?
  • What external event could change our assumptions?
  • What are we pretending is not a problem?
  • What decision are we avoiding?

Phase 3: Share and Cluster (15 minutes)

  1. Read each risk aloud (without attribution).
  2. Place on the board.
  3. Group similar risks together.
  4. Merge duplicates.

Phase 4: Classify (15 minutes)

For each cluster, the group decides:

ClassificationCriteria
TigerSupported by evidence. Plausible failure scenario.
Paper TigerSounds scary but unlikely or low-impact on inspection.
ElephantThe room got quiet when this was read. People exchanged glances.

For each Tiger, assign urgency: Launch-Blocking, Fast-Follow, or Track.

Phase 5: Mitigation Plans (15 minutes)

For each Launch-Blocking Tiger, complete:

FieldDescription
RiskClear description of the risk
EvidenceWhat data or experience supports this being a real risk?
MitigationSpecific, concrete action to reduce the risk
OwnerSingle person accountable
Decision DateDate by which the mitigation must be complete or the launch decision revisited

Phase 6: Address Elephants (10 minutes)

Elephants require a different approach than Tigers:

  1. Acknowledge -- Name the elephant explicitly. "The team is concerned that..."
  2. Assess -- Is this actually a Tiger in disguise? If so, reclassify.
  3. Decide -- Either address it (assign an owner) or consciously accept it (document the acceptance and rationale).

Python Tool: risk_categorizer.py

Categorize and analyze risks using the CLI tool:

# Run with demo data
python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py --demo

# Run with custom input
python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py input.json

# Output as JSON
python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py input.json --format json

Input Format

{
  "risks": [
    {
      "description": "Authentication service has had 3 outages in the last month",
      "category": "tiger",
      "evidence": "Incident reports from last 30 days",
      "urgency": "launch_blocking"
    }
  ]
}

Output

Risk distribution summary, action plans for launch-blocking tigers, and flags for elephants that may need investigation.

See scripts/risk_categorizer.py for full documentation.

Output Format

Pre-Mortem Summary

Pre-Mortem Analysis: [Product/Feature Name]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Participants: [list]
Total risks identified: N
  - Tigers: X (Launch-Blocking: A, Fast-Follow: B, Track: C)
  - Paper Tigers: Y
  - Elephants: Z

Risk Registry

#RiskCategoryUrgencyEvidenceMitigationOwnerDecision Date
1...TigerLaunch-Blocking............
2...TigerFast-Follow............
3...Paper Tiger--...------
4...ElephantTBD............

Use assets/pre_mortem_template.md for the full document template.

Integration with Other Discovery Skills

  • Use after brainstorm-ideas/ and brainstorm-experiments/ -- pre-mortem is the final check before committing to build.
  • Feed launch-blocking Tiger mitigations back into identify-assumptions/ if they surface new assumptions.
  • Elephants often reveal assumptions that the team has been avoiding.

Troubleshooting

SymptomLikely CauseResolution
Team generates mostly paper tigersRisk aversion or surface-level thinking; team not fully immersing in the failure scenarioRe-read the thought experiment prompt slowly; extend silent writing time from 10 to 15 minutes; use specific prompts
No elephants surfacedPsychological safety too low, or facilitator is a manager creating power dynamicsUse anonymous contribution (sticky notes or digital tools); consider an external facilitator; separate session from performance reviews
All risks classified as tigersTeam lacks calibration on what constitutes real evidence vs. anxietyRequire concrete evidence for each tiger; if evidence is hypothetical, reclassify as paper tiger
Elephant escalation check flags too many false positivesESCALATION_KEYWORDS list is broad, matching common words in non-critical contextsReview matched keywords in output; refine escalation thresholds; use the recommendation as a prompt, not a verdict
Launch-blocking tigers have no owners assignedPre-mortem session ended without Phase 5 mitigation planningAlways reserve 15 minutes for mitigation plans; do not skip Phase 5 even if the session runs long
Validation errors on input JSONMissing required fields (description, evidence, category) or invalid urgency for tigersCheck that every tiger has urgency set to one of: launch_blocking, fast_follow, track

Success Criteria

  • Pre-mortem conducted before every major launch, migration, or significant resource commitment
  • At least 5-10 risks generated per person during the silent writing phase
  • Risk distribution includes all three categories (not all tigers, not all paper tigers)
  • Every launch-blocking tiger has an assigned owner, concrete mitigation plan, and decision date
  • Elephants are explicitly named and either addressed or consciously accepted with documented rationale
  • Pre-mortem findings are reviewed against actual outcomes post-launch to calibrate future sessions
  • Session duration stays within 60-90 minutes total across all 6 phases

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

  • Prospective hindsight exercises using the "14 days after launch failure" framing
  • Tiger / Paper Tiger / Elephant risk classification with urgency levels
  • Automated elephant escalation detection based on keyword signals
  • Risk registry generation with category distribution and action plans
  • Facilitation methodology for both in-person and remote teams

Out of Scope:

  • Ongoing risk management and tracking (see senior-pm/risk_matrix_analyzer.py)
  • Quantitative risk analysis with probability/impact scoring (see senior-pm/ skill)
  • Product discovery and hypothesis validation (see brainstorm-experiments/)
  • Technical architecture risk assessment (see engineering/ skills)

Important Caveats:

  • Pre-mortems are most effective with 4-8 participants. Fewer than 4 limits perspective diversity; more than 10 makes classification unwieldy.
  • The elephant escalation keyword check is a heuristic. It catches common patterns but cannot detect all political or organizational risks.
  • Pre-mortems complement, not replace, assumption mapping. Use identify-assumptions/ for systematic risk categorization and pre-mortem/ for surfacing unspoken concerns.
  • Psychological safety is a prerequisite. If the team cannot speak honestly, the pre-mortem will produce sanitized results.

Integration Points

IntegrationDirectionDescription
brainstorm-ideas/Receives fromIdeas that passed initial validation are subject to pre-mortem before full build
brainstorm-experiments/Receives fromPost-experiment, pre-mortem stress-tests the build decision
identify-assumptions/BidirectionalLaunch-blocking tigers may surface new assumptions; elephants often reveal avoided assumptions
execution/create-prd/Feeds intoTiger mitigations become PRD risk sections and assumption validation plans
senior-pm/Feeds intoLaunch-blocking tigers escalate into portfolio risk registers via risk_matrix_analyzer.py
scrum-master/Feeds intoFast-follow tigers become sprint backlog items with mitigation-focused stories

Tool Reference

risk_categorizer.py

Categorizes pre-mortem risks as Tigers, Paper Tigers, or Elephants. Generates action plans for launch-blocking tigers and flags elephants with escalation signals.

FlagTypeDefaultDescription
input_filepositional(optional)Path to JSON file with risks array
--demoflagoffRun with built-in sample data (7 risks across all categories)
--formatchoicetextOutput format: text or json

Input fields per risk:

  • description (required): Clear description of the risk scenario
  • category (required): One of tiger, paper_tiger, elephant
  • evidence (required): Supporting data or observations
  • urgency (required for tigers): One of launch_blocking, fast_follow, track

References

  • Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Pre-Mortem," *Harvard Business Review* (2007)
  • Daniel Kahneman, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* (2011) -- prospective hindsight
  • Chip Heath & Dan Heath, *Decisive* (2013) -- decision-making under uncertainty
  • Amy Edmondson, *The Fearless Organization* (2018) -- psychological safety for surfacing elephants

平台分布

Codex

34.94%
按下载量换算184

Claude

31.97%
按下载量换算168

Cursor

18.53%
按下载量换算98

Gemini CLI

10.8%
按下载量换算57

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills