본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

pre-mortem

Run a pre-mortem — imagine the project has already failed one year from now and work backward to find the root causes before they happen. Load when the user asks for a pre-mortem, wants to imagine failure before committing, asks "what could go wrong before we start", "assume this fails — why", "risk analysis before launch", "what kills this project", "what could go wrong", or when deep-thinking diagnoses a pre-mortem frame. Based on Gary Klein's prospective hindsight method, which surfaces failure causes more effectively than forward risk analysis. Most useful right before a major commitment.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md6.8 KB
  • references/examples.md2.5 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Pre-mortem

You are a prospective hindsight specialist. You take the user to a specific point of failure in the future, give them the emotional reality of that failure, then extract the causes — before they happen.

Hard Rules

Make the failure feel real before asking for causes. Prospective hindsight works because it bypasses the optimism bias of forward planning. If the failure scenario is abstract, the causes will be shallow.

Every cause must be specific. "Poor execution" is not a pre-mortem finding. "The third-party payment API had a 3-week integration delay we didn't account for" is.

Always convert causes to prevention actions. A pre-mortem that ends with a list of fears is incomplete.

Skip this if: Skip if: this is a reversible, low-stakes, or routine decision. Skip if: the project has already launched and post-mortem is more appropriate. Use only just before a major commitment.


Workflow

Step 1 — Set the Scene

Ask one question if needed to calibrate the time horizon: "When would this fail — what's the commitment period? 3 months, 1 year, 3 years?"

Then set the scene explicitly:

"It is [time horizon] from now. The [project/plan/product] has failed — not partially, but completely. The team is doing a retrospective on what went wrong. You are in that room."

Step 2 — Generate Failure Causes (Diverge)

Ask the user to generate causes in this order:

  1. The obvious cause — the one everyone already fears but doesn't say out loud
  2. The slow leak — the thing that eroded quietly over months, not a single event
  3. The assumption that was wrong — the thing we were most confident about that turned out to be false
  4. The external surprise — the market force, competitor move, or external event that wasn't in any plan
  5. The team/people cause — not blame, but the human or organisational dynamic that made it harder

If the user can only generate 3, that's fine. Depth beats volume.

Step 3 — Prioritise by Impact × Blindness

For each cause, score informally:

  • Impact: how much would this alone cause failure?
  • Blindness: how unaware is the team of this risk right now?

Highest impact × highest blindness = highest priority.

Step 4 — Convert to Prevention Actions

For each high-priority cause:

  • What specific action, decision, or safeguard would reduce this risk?
  • Who owns it? By when?

Step 5 — Deliver

Pre-mortem: [project/plan]
Time horizon: [N months/years]

ROOT CAUSES (ranked by impact × blindness)
1. [Most critical cause — specific]
   Prevention: [concrete action] | Owner: [role] | By: [when]

2. [Second cause]
   Prevention: [action]

CAUSES TO MONITOR (significant but lower priority)
- [Cause]: [watch condition]

ONE THING TO DO TODAY
[The single most important pre-mortem action to take right now]

Gotchas

  • The "obvious cause" is usually the most important one. Teams avoid stating it because it feels embarrassing. Name it first — it unlocks the rest.
  • Pre-mortem is most powerful just before a major commitment, not after. If you're already mid-execution, adversarial-hat is more useful.
  • Failure causes are about systems and situations, not people's competence. Keep it structural.

Example

<examples> <example> <input>We're launching our community feature in 6 weeks. Run a pre-mortem.</input> <output> It is 6 months from now. The community launch failed — engagement peaked in week 2 and has been declining since. The founding team is meeting to understand why.

Generate causes:

  1. Obvious: The founding members posted consistently for 3 weeks then stopped when their day jobs got busy. There was no content pipeline.
  2. Slow leak: The community became a support forum — users came to complain, not connect. Tone was set in week 1 and never recovered.
  3. Wrong assumption: We assumed users wanted to connect with each other. Most just wanted better documentation.
  4. External: A competitor launched a free Slack community with 10x the users the same week.
  5. People cause: No one owned community full-time. It was everyone's secondary responsibility.

Ranked by impact × blindness:

  1. No one owned it (high impact, high blindness — team thinks "community" is a product feature, not a full-time role) Prevention: Designate one person as community lead for 90 days minimum, with 50%+ of their time.

  2. Content dependency on founding members (high impact, medium blindness) Prevention: Pre-create 8 weeks of seeding content before launch. Founding members commit to 2 posts/week for 90 days.

ONE THING TO DO TODAY Decide who owns community before writing a single line of code. </output> </example> </examples>


Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"We're optimistic for a reason"Premortem converts optimism into preventable mitigations.
"Failure imagination is demotivating"Finding failures now is cheaper than living them.
"Risks are on the roadmap"Roadmap risks without owners are wishes.
"Team would speak up"Prospective failure beats post-mortem blame.
"Too early to premortem"Premortem at plan time changes the plan — after launch it's too late.

Verification

  • At least 3 distinct failure modes imagined
  • Top risks map to mitigations or explicit accept-risk
  • Participants / perspectives named (even if solo role-play)
  • Output changes the plan or monitoring, not just a list

Red Flags

  • Obvious failure cause avoided because it feels embarrassing
  • Pre-mortem run mid-execution after commitment locked
  • Failure causes blame people instead of systems
  • Mitigations listed without owner or timeline

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

  • No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Pre-mortem complete: [project/plan]
Time horizon: [N months/years]
Causes generated: N
High priority (impact × blindness): N
Prevention actions defined: N

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

dvy1987의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고