Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

postmortem(postmortem 测试)

postmortem 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。

postmortem 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;许可证为 MIT,暂无第三方扫描结果,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 44,194。

总安装 930周安装 38GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 298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
MIT

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:postmortem(postmortem 测试)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude
仓库路径:skills/postmortem
安装命令:
npx skills add lyndonkl/claude --skill "postmortem"
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。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add lyndonkl/claude --skill "postmortem"

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。

postmortem 用于发现和安装 AI 代理技能,适合在 Claude 生态中扩展工具链时使用。它支持按领域或技术栈筛选技能,帮助快速集成所需功能模块。通过 npx 从 GitHub 仓库安装,兼容 Codex、Cursor 等多个宿主环境。安装前请检查 npm 版本和网络连接,部分技能可能需要额外配置。

建议使用前查阅官方文档,确认技能与当前项目的兼容性。

来源仓库内路径:skills/postmortem

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 lyndonkl/claude --skill "postmortem";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

postmortem 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add lyndonkl/claude --skill "postmortem"。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

postmortem 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。

postmortem 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。

postmortem 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

postmortem 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 930 次,近一周安装 38 次,下载 298 次。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。

postmortem 安全吗?

没有查到第三方扫描结果,安全性无法从公开资料判断,安装前请自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。

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。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 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

  • 没有第三方扫描结果,安全性只能靠自己读源码判断。
  • 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

  • 要求有安全扫描结论才肯安装的团队。
  • 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
postmortem

postmortem 测试 · 本页

930—只读MIT未收录

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

name
postmortem
description
Use when analyzing failures, outages, incidents, or negative outcomes, conducting blameless postmortems, documenting root causes with 5 Whys or fishbone diagrams, identifying corrective actions with owners and timelines, learning from near-misses, establishing prevention strategies, or when user mentions postmortem, incident review, failure analysis, RCA, lessons learned, or after-action review.

Postmortem

Table of Contents

  1. Purpose
  2. When to Use
  3. What Is It?
  4. Workflow
  5. Common Patterns
  6. Guardrails
  7. Quick Reference

Purpose

Conduct blameless postmortems that transform failures into learning opportunities by documenting what happened, why it happened, impact quantification, root cause analysis, and actionable preventions with clear ownership.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

Incident Context

  • Production outage, system failure, or service degradation occurred
  • Security breach, data loss, or compliance violation happened
  • Product launch failed, project missed deadline, or initiative underperformed
  • Customer-impacting bug, quality issue, or support crisis arose
  • Near-miss incident that could have caused serious harm (proactive postmortem)

Learning Goals

  • Need to understand root cause (not just symptoms) to prevent recurrence
  • Want to identify systemic issues vs. individual mistakes
  • Must document timeline and impact for stakeholders or auditors
  • Aim to improve processes, systems, or practices based on failure insights
  • Building organizational learning culture (celebrate transparency, not blame)

Timing

  • Immediately after incident resolution (while memory fresh, within 48 hours)
  • Scheduled reviews for recurring issues or chronic problems
  • Quarterly reviews of all incidents to identify patterns
  • Pre-mortem style: Before major launch, imagine it failed and write postmortem

Do NOT use when:

  • Incident still ongoing (focus on resolution first, postmortem second)
  • Looking to assign blame or punish individuals (antithesis of blameless culture)
  • Issue is trivial with no learning value (reserved for significant incidents)

What Is It?

Postmortem is a structured, blameless analysis of failures that answers:

  • What happened? Timeline of events from detection to resolution
  • What was the impact? Quantified harm (users affected, revenue lost, duration)
  • Why did it happen? Root cause analysis using 5 Whys, fishbone, or fault trees
  • How do we prevent recurrence? Actionable items with owners and deadlines
  • What went well? Positive aspects of incident response

Key Principles:

  • Blameless: Focus on systems/processes, not individuals. Humans err; systems should be resilient.
  • Actionable: Corrective actions must be specific, owned, and tracked
  • Transparent: Share widely to enable organizational learning
  • Timely: Conduct while memory fresh (within 48 hours of resolution)

Quick Example:

Incident: Database outage, 2-hour downtime, 50K users affected

Timeline:

  • 14:05 - Automated deployment started (config change)
  • 14:07 - Database connection pool exhausted, errors spike
  • 14:10 - Alerts fired, on-call paged
  • 14:15 - Engineer investigates, identifies bad config
  • 15:30 - Rollback initiated (delayed by unclear runbook)
  • 16:05 - Service restored

Impact: 2-hour outage, 50K users unable to access, estimated $20K revenue loss

Root Cause (5 Whys):

  1. Why outage? Bad config deployed
  2. Why bad config? Connection pool size set to 10 (should be 100)
  3. Why wrong value? Config templated incorrectly
  4. Why template wrong? New team member unfamiliar with prod values
  5. Why no catch? No staging environment testing of configs

Corrective Actions:

  • [ ] Add config validation to deployment pipeline (Owner: Alex, Due: Mar 15)
  • [ ] Create staging env with prod-like load (Owner: Jordan, Due: Mar 30)
  • [ ] Update runbook with rollback steps (Owner: Sam, Due: Mar 10)
  • [ ] Onboarding checklist: Review prod configs (Owner: Morgan, Due: Mar 5)

What Went Well: Alerts fired quickly, team responded within 5 minutes, good communication

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Postmortem Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Assemble timeline and quantify impact
- [ ] Step 2: Conduct root cause analysis
- [ ] Step 3: Define corrective and preventive actions
- [ ] Step 4: Document and share postmortem
- [ ] Step 5: Track action items to completion

Step 1: Assemble timeline and quantify impact

Gather facts: when detected, when started, key events, when resolved. Quantify impact: users affected, duration, revenue/SLA impact, customer complaints. For straightforward incidents use resources/template.md. For complex incidents with multiple causes or cascading failures, study resources/methodology.md for advanced timeline reconstruction techniques.

Step 2: Conduct root cause analysis

Ask "Why?" 5 times to get from symptom to root cause, or use fishbone diagram for complex incidents with multiple contributing factors. See Root Cause Analysis Techniques for guidance. Focus on system failures (process gaps, missing safeguards) not human errors.

Step 3: Define corrective and preventive actions

For each root cause, identify actions to prevent recurrence. Must be specific (not "improve testing"), owned (named person), and time-bound (deadline). Categorize as immediate fixes vs. long-term improvements. See Corrective Actions for framework.

Step 4: Document and share postmortem

Create postmortem document using template. Include timeline, impact, root cause, actions, what went well. Share widely (engineering, product, leadership) to enable learning. Present in team meeting for discussion. Archive in knowledge base.

Step 5: Track action items to completion

Assign owners, set deadlines, add to project tracker. Review progress in standups or weekly meetings. Close postmortem only when all actions complete. Self-assess quality using resources/evaluators/rubric_postmortem.json. Minimum standard: ≥3.5 average score.

Common Patterns

By Incident Type

Production Outages (system failures, downtime):

  • Timeline: Detection → Investigation → Mitigation → Resolution
  • Impact: Users affected, duration, SLA breach, revenue loss
  • Root cause: Often config errors, deployment issues, infrastructure limits
  • Actions: Improve monitoring, runbooks, rollback procedures, capacity planning

Security Incidents (breaches, vulnerabilities):

  • Timeline: Breach occurrence → Detection (often delayed) → Containment → Remediation
  • Impact: Data exposed, compliance risk, reputation damage
  • Root cause: Missing security controls, access management gaps, unpatched vulnerabilities
  • Actions: Security audits, access reviews, patch management, training

Product/Project Failures (launches, deadlines):

  • Timeline: Planning → Execution → Launch/Deadline → Outcome vs. Expectations
  • Impact: Revenue miss, user churn, wasted effort, opportunity cost
  • Root cause: Poor requirements, unrealistic estimates, misalignment, inadequate testing
  • Actions: Improve discovery, estimation, stakeholder alignment, validation processes

Process Failures (operational, procedural):

  • Timeline: Process initiation → Breakdown point → Impact realization
  • Impact: Delays, quality issues, rework, team frustration
  • Root cause: Unclear process, missing steps, handoff failures, tooling gaps
  • Actions: Document processes, automate workflows, improve communication, training

By Root Cause Category

Human Error (surface cause, dig deeper):

  • Don't stop at "person made mistake"
  • Ask: Why was mistake possible? Why not caught? Why no safeguard?
  • Actions: Reduce error likelihood (checklists, automation), increase error detection (testing, reviews), mitigate error impact (rollback, redundancy)

Process Gap (missing or unclear procedures):

  • Symptoms: "Didn't know to do X", "Not in runbook", "First time"
  • Actions: Document process, create checklist, formalize approval gates, onboarding

Technical Debt (deferred maintenance):

  • Symptoms: "Known issue", "Fragile system", "Workaround failed"
  • Actions: Prioritize tech debt, allocate 20% capacity, refactor, replace legacy systems

External Dependencies (third-party failures):

  • Symptoms: "Vendor down", "API failed", "Partner issue"
  • Actions: Add redundancy, circuit breakers, graceful degradation, SLA monitoring, vendor diversification

Systemic Issues (organizational, cultural):

  • Symptoms: "Always rushed", "No time to test", "Pressure to ship"
  • Actions: Address root organizational issues (unrealistic deadlines, resource constraints, incentive misalignment)

Root Cause Analysis Techniques

5 Whys:

  1. Start with problem statement
  2. Ask "Why did this happen?" → Answer
  3. Ask "Why did that happen?" → Answer
  4. Repeat 5 times (or until root cause found)
  5. Root cause: Fixable at organizational/system level

Example: Database outage → Why? Bad config → Why? Wrong value → Why? Template error → Why? New team member unfamiliar → Why? No config review in onboarding

Fishbone Diagram (Ishikawa):

  • Categories: People, Process, Technology, Environment
  • Brainstorm causes in each category
  • Identify most likely root causes for investigation
  • Useful for complex incidents with multiple contributing factors

Fault Tree Analysis:

  • Top: Failure event (e.g., "System down")
  • Gates: AND (all required) vs OR (any sufficient)
  • Leaves: Base causes (e.g., "Config error" OR "Network failure")
  • Trace path from failure to root causes

Corrective Actions Framework

Types of Actions:

  • Immediate Fixes: Deployed within days (hotfix, manual process, workaround)
  • Short-term Improvements: Completed within weeks (better monitoring, updated runbook, process change)
  • Long-term Investments: Completed within months (architecture changes, new systems, cultural shifts)

SMART Actions:

  • Specific: "Add config validation" not "Improve deploys"
  • Measurable: "Reduce MTTR from 2hr to 30min" not "Faster response"
  • Assignable: Named owner, not "team"
  • Realistic: Given capacity and constraints
  • Time-bound: Explicit deadline

Prioritization:

  1. High impact, low effort: Do immediately
  2. High impact, high effort: Schedule as strategic project
  3. Low impact, low effort: Do if spare capacity
  4. Low impact, high effort: Consider skipping (cost > benefit)

Prevention Hierarchy (from most to least effective):

  1. Eliminate: Remove hazard entirely (e.g., deprecate risky feature)
  2. Substitute: Replace with safer alternative (e.g., use managed service vs self-host)
  3. Engineering controls: Add safeguards (e.g., rate limits, circuit breakers, automated testing)
  4. Administrative controls: Improve processes (e.g., runbooks, checklists, reviews)
  5. Training: Educate people (least effective alone, combine with others)

Guardrails

Blameless Culture:

  • ❌ "Engineer caused outage by deploying bad config" → ✓ "Deployment pipeline allowed bad config to reach production"
  • ❌ "PM didn't validate requirements" → ✓ "Requirements validation process missing"
  • ❌ "Designer made mistake" → ✓ "Design review process didn't catch issue"
  • Focus: What system/process failed? Not who made error.

Root Cause Depth:

  • ❌ Stopping at surface: "Bug caused outage" → ✓ Deep analysis: "Bug deployed because testing gap, no staging env, rushed release pressure"
  • ❌ Single cause: "Database failure" → ✓ Multiple causes: "Database + no failover + alerting delay + unclear runbook"
  • Rule: Keep asking "Why?" until you reach actionable systemic improvements

Actionability:

  • ❌ Vague: "Improve testing", "Better communication", "More careful" → ✓ Specific: "Add E2E test suite covering top 10 user flows by Apr 1 (Owner: Alex)"
  • ❌ No owner: "Team should document" → ✓ Owned: "Sam documents incident response runbook by Mar 15"
  • ❌ No deadline: "Eventually migrate" → ✓ Time-bound: "Complete migration by Q2 end"

Impact Quantification:

  • ❌ Qualitative: "Many users affected", "Significant downtime" → ✓ Quantitative: "50K users (20% of base), 2-hour outage, $20K revenue loss"
  • ❌ No metrics: "Bad customer experience" → ✓ Metrics: "NPS dropped from 50 to 30, 100 support tickets, 5 churned customers ($50K ARR)"

Timeliness:

  • ❌ Wait 2 weeks → Memory fades, urgency lost → ✓ Conduct within 48 hours while fresh
  • ❌ Never follow up → Actions forgotten → ✓ Track actions, review weekly, close when complete

Quick Reference

Resources:

Success Criteria:

  • ✓ Timeline clear with timestamps and key events
  • ✓ Impact quantified (users, duration, revenue, metrics)
  • ✓ Root cause identified (systemic, not individual blame)
  • ✓ Corrective actions SMART (specific, measurable, assigned, realistic, time-bound)
  • ✓ Blameless tone (focus on systems/processes)
  • ✓ Documented and shared within 48 hours
  • ✓ Action items tracked to completion

Common Mistakes:

  • ❌ Blame individuals → culture of fear, hide future issues
  • ❌ Superficial root cause → doesn't prevent recurrence
  • ❌ Vague actions → nothing actually improves
  • ❌ No follow-through → actions never completed, same incident repeats
  • ❌ Delayed postmortem → details forgotten, less useful
  • ❌ Not sharing → no organizational learning
  • ❌ Defensive tone → misses opportunity to improve

平台分布

Claude Code

25.78%
按下载量换算77

Gemini CLI

22.68%
按下载量换算68

Antigravity

17.14%
按下载量换算51

windsurf

11.33%
按下载量换算34

OpenCode

8.36%
按下载量换算25

trae

3.54%
按下载量换算11

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

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