Incident Postmortem
GitHubOfficialFirst committed by sudeepghatakDistributed by GitHub
- Skill
- Content generator
- Software development
- MIT
- No issues found
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
This skill provides a systematic workflow for teams to document production incidents, outages, or service degradations. It emphasizes a blameless culture, focusing on systemic failures rather than individual errors. By guiding users through metadata collection, timeline reconstruction, root cause analysis using the 5 Whys, and impact quantification, it ensures that teams produce a comprehensive report that leads to concrete, assigned action items to prevent future recurrences.
What it does
- Guides the collection of incident metadata and impact metrics.
- Facilitates precise chronological timeline reconstruction.
- Applies the 5 Whys technique to identify systemic root causes.
- Distinguishes between root causes and contributing factors.
- Generates a structured, professional post-mortem document.
- Ensures all action items have clear owners and deadlines.
When to use it
- After a production outage or significant service degradation has been resolved.
- Following a significant near-miss incident.
- When a team needs to capture technical learnings while context is still fresh.
- When an SLA breach or data loss event requires formal documentation.
Advantages
- Promotes a blameless culture by focusing on system and process improvements.
- Prevents vague action items by requiring specific owners and due dates.
- Standardizes the incident review process across the organization.
- Helps identify non-obvious systemic gaps through iterative questioning.
Usage examples
- “We just resolved a major database outage. Can you help me write a post-mortem?”
- The agent will initiate the metadata collection process, asking for the incident title, severity, and timeline to begin building the report.
- “Our API was down for 30 minutes. Let's do an RCA.”
- The agent will guide you through the 5 Whys to uncover why the API failed and help you document the timeline and contributing factors.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/github/incident-postmortem/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip incident-postmortem.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by sudeepghatak
Incident Post-Mortem
Guide a team through writing a structured, blameless post-mortem after a production incident. The output is a document that builds shared understanding, identifies root causes without blame, and produces concrete action items to prevent recurrence.
Blameless Principle
Systems fail, not people. The goal is to understand HOW the incident happened — not WHO caused it. Avoid language like "X forgot to", "Y should have known". Use "the system did not", "the process lacked", "the alert did not fire".
When to Use
Production outage or service degradation has been resolved
A significant near-miss occurred (would have been an incident if caught later)
User-facing errors, data loss, or SLA breach happened
Team wants to capture learnings before context fades
Not for: Minor bugs caught in staging, planned maintenance windows, or incidents with no learning value.
Input Requirements
Gather these details before writing the post-mortem. Ask for anything missing:
Incident Metadata
Incident title (short, descriptive)
Date and time of detection (with timezone)
Date and time of resolution
Severity / impact level (P1–P4 or equivalent)
Incident commander / on-call owner
Impact
Affected services and systems
User-facing impact (errors, slowness, full outage)
Estimated number of users affected
Data loss or corruption (yes/no, scope)
SLA/SLO breach (yes/no, by how much)
Timeline Events
Key moments to reconstruct:
First symptom occurred
Alert fired (or was noticed manually)
On-call paged / incident declared
Investigation started
Root cause identified
Mitigation applied
Full resolution confirmed
Customer communication sent (if any)
Contributing Factors
Ask the team: "What made this worse than it needed to be?" — not "who failed". Examples:
Alert threshold too high / alert didn't fire
Runbook was missing or outdated
Deploy lacked a feature flag for rollback
Monitoring didn't cover this failure mode
On-call handoff missed context
Process
Step 1 — Gather Metadata
If the user has not provided full incident details, ask for them section by section. Don't proceed to writing until you have: title, times, severity, affected services, and at least a rough timeline.
Step 2 — Reconstruct Timeline
Work with the user to build a precise chronological timeline. For each event:
Exact time (UTC preferred)
What happened (system event or human action)
Who observed it or took the action
Link to log / alert / Slack message if available
Flag gaps: "We don't know what happened between 14:32 and 14:47 — worth checking logs."
Step 3 — Root Cause Analysis
Use the 5 Whys iteratively:
Why did users see 500 errors?
→ The API pods were crash-looping.
Why were they crash-looping?
→ Memory limit was exceeded.
Why was the limit exceeded?
→ A new query was loading full result sets into memory.
Why wasn't this caught before deploy?
→ Load tests only covered the p50 case, not high-cardinality accounts.
Why did load tests only cover p50?
→ We had no test fixtures for large accounts.Stop when you reach a system/process gap you can fix. The last "why" should point to an action item.
Distinguish:
Root cause — the deepest systemic gap (one or two)
Contributing factors — conditions that made it worse but aren't the root cause
Step 4 — Impact Quantification
Help the user be precise:
Duration: detection to resolution (not symptom start to resolution — separate these)
Error rate at peak vs. normal baseline
Percentage of traffic affected
Revenue / business impact if known
Step 5 — Action Items
For each root cause and contributing factor, generate at least one action item:
| # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Add load test fixtures for accounts > 10k records | @eng-team | 2026-07-01 | High |
| 2 | Lower memory alert threshold from 90% to 75% | @platform | 2026-06-23 | High |
| 3 | Add runbook for memory OOM pods | @on-call-rotation | 2026-06-30 | Medium |
Action items must have an owner (a person, not a team) and a due date. Vague actions like "improve monitoring" are not acceptable — break them into specific deliverables.
Step 6 — Write the Document
Produce the full post-mortem using the template below. Save to docs/postmortems/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md.
Output Template
# Post-Mortem: [Incident Title]
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Severity:** P[1-4]
**Duration:** X hours Y minutes (HH:MM UTC – HH:MM UTC)
**Incident Commander:** @name
**Status:** Resolved
---
## Summary
[2–3 sentences. What happened, what was the user impact, how was it resolved. Written for someone who wasn't involved.]
## Impact
| Dimension | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| Affected services | [list] |
| User-facing impact | [errors / degraded / full outage] |
| Users affected | [estimated number or %] |
| Peak error rate | [X% vs Y% baseline] |
| Data loss | [none / describe scope] |
| SLA breach | [yes/no — by how much] |
## Timeline
All times UTC.
| Time | Event |
|------|-------|
| HH:MM | [First symptom / alert fired] |
| HH:MM | [On-call paged] |
| HH:MM | [Incident declared] |
| HH:MM | [Root cause identified] |
| HH:MM | [Mitigation applied] |
| HH:MM | [Full resolution confirmed] |
| HH:MM | [Customer communication sent] |
## Root Cause
[1–2 paragraphs. The deepest systemic gap that, if fixed, would have prevented the incident. Written in blameless language. Reference the 5 Whys chain if helpful.]
## Contributing Factors
- [Factor 1 — condition that made the incident worse]
- [Factor 2]
- [Factor 3]
## What Went Well
- [Thing that worked — good alert, fast response, clear runbook]
- [Another positive]
## What Could Have Gone Better
- [Gap in process, tooling, or coverage — no blame language]
- [Another gap]
## Action Items
| # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority |
|---|--------|-------|----------|----------|
| 1 | [Specific deliverable] | @person | YYYY-MM-DD | High/Medium/Low |
| 2 | | | | |
## Lessons Learned
[Optional. 2–4 bullet points capturing non-obvious insights worth sharing with the broader team.]Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| "Bob forgot to check the config" | "The deploy checklist did not include config validation" |
| Root cause is "human error" | Keep asking Why — human error is always a symptom |
| Action items without owners | Every item needs a named individual, not a team |
| Timeline reconstructed from memory | Check logs, alerts, Slack, PagerDuty before writing |
| "Improve monitoring" as an action | Specify: which service, which metric, what threshold, by when |
| Post-mortem written weeks later | Write within 48–72 hours while context is fresh |
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer879 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer1.0 KiB
- SKILL.md7.2 KiB
Requirements and compatibility
Written for: GitHub Copilot
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Security
No issues found by our static scan· No issues found
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- First committed by
sudeepghatak
- Publisher
- GitHub (Official)
- Distributed by
- GitHub
- Source
- github/awesome-copilot · skills/incident-postmortem · commit 797337f
- Licence
- MIT License (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
- Contributors
- sudeepghatak
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by sudeepghatak or GitHub.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download incident-postmortem.zip