Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 运维和基础设施

incident-postmortem(事件事后剖析)

incident-postmortem 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。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。

incident-postmortem 是运维和基础设施类 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,按安装量在运维和基础设施类的 2,449 个 Skill 里排第 2,325。

总安装 210周安装 9GitHub Stars 283下载 73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:incident-postmortem(事件事后剖析)
来源仓库:https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/incident-postmortem
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill incident-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。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill incident-postmortem

这个 Skill 是做什么的

运维和基础设施类 Skill 处理部署、监控、日志和云资源,多数需要较高的执行权限。

用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息。适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中围绕仓库状态和代码变更进行整理。通过 npx skills add 命令从指定仓库安装并使用。安装前需确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网或文件操作。

建议结合原始 README 核验具体用法和功能边界。

来源仓库内路径:skills/incident-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 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill inciden…;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

incident-postmortem 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill incident-postmort…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

incident-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。

incident-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。

incident-postmortem 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。

incident-postmortem 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 210 次,近一周安装 9 次,下载 73 次,GitHub 283 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。

incident-postmortem 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。
  • 需要处理运维和基础设施类任务、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。

运维和基础设施类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
brainstorming

头脑风暴 · Codex、Claude

3,148,776173,131操作浏览器MIT通过
copywriting

文案写作 · Codex、Claude

1,996,72425,583需要联网MIT通过
openclaw-secure-linux-cloud

OpenClaw secure linux cloud 命令行 · Codex、Claude

1,853,08840接触敏感数据未明确未通过
xget

xget 命令行 · Codex、Claude

1,799,28040执行命令未明确未通过
requesting-code-review

代码审查请求 · Codex、Claude

1,590,144173,103权限未标注MIT通过
incident-postmortem

事件事后剖析 · 本页

210283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

Incident Postmortem Skill

This skill produces a complete, blameless incident postmortem document following industry-standard format. Output is ready to share with engineering teams, leadership, and affected stakeholders.

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)

Output Structure


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

DimensionDetails
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

#ActionOwnerDue DatePriority
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")
  • Contributing factors explain the systemic gaps
  • Every action item has an owner and due date
  • "What went well" section is genuine, not token
  • Executive summary is readable by non-technical leadership

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "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]"

平台分布

Codex

33.27%
按下载量换算24

Claude

33.26%
按下载量换算24

Cursor

19.75%
按下载量换算14

Gemini CLI

10.79%
按下载量换算8

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