본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

incident-postmortem

Create a structured review after a production incident, focusing on systems and processes without blaming individuals. Reconstruct events, quantify impact, investigate causes, and document specific follow-up actions with named owners and deadlines.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Use when an outage, production incident, or significant service degradation has occurred and the team needs to write a structured blameless post-mortem. Triggers on phrases like "write a post-mortem", "incident review", "what went wrong", "outage report", "root cause analysis", or "RCA". Covers timeline reconstruction, contributing factor analysis, impact quantification, and action item generation with owners.

연동 도구Slack
설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Write a review after a production outage
  • Reconstruct an incident timeline from records
  • Separate root causes from contributing factors
  • Define prevention actions with owners and deadlines

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md7.2 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

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:

#ActionOwnerDue DatePriority
1Add load test fixtures for accounts > 10k records@eng-team2026-07-01High
2Lower memory alert threshold from 90% to 75%@platform2026-06-23High
3Add runbook for memory OOM pods@on-call-rotation2026-06-30Medium

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

MistakeFix
"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 ownersEvery item needs a named individual, not a team
Timeline reconstructed from memoryCheck logs, alerts, Slack, PagerDuty before writing
"Improve monitoring" as an actionSpecify: which service, which metric, what threshold, by when
Post-mortem written weeks laterWrite within 48–72 hours while context is fresh

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

Map an existing codebase into seven documents covering its technology, structure, architecture, conventions, integrations, tests, and concerns. Link findings to file evidence, mark unknowns, and highlight differences between stated plans and the actual implementation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Get oriented in an unfamiliar codebase
  • Prepare documentation for a project handover
  • Compare documented architecture with implementation
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Assess a repository’s readiness for AI agents with AgentRC and generate a standalone HTML dashboard. Review scores across nine areas, see prioritized improvements, and optionally apply scoring policies tailored to an organization.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Assessing a repository’s readiness for AI agents
  • Prioritizing improvements from assessment results
  • Reviewing scores under an organization’s own policy
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Generate coding agent instruction files from a project's actual code using AgentRC. Capture detected languages, frameworks, and conventions in one shared file or split rules by topic and project area, with a preview before writing.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Create project instructions for VS Code Copilot
  • Refresh agent rules after project changes
  • Split monorepo instructions by project area
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Customize AgentRC readiness assessments to match team or organization standards. Choose or create policies that adjust check importance, disable irrelevant checks, set pass thresholds, and define requirements for automated checks in CI workflows.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Set shared readiness standards across an organization
  • Focus assessments on AI tooling
  • Adjust the importance of individual checks
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Analyze supplied ad performance data to identify wasted spend, strong campaigns, and next tests. Compare channels, assess whether test differences are meaningful, and produce budget reallocation recommendations with a prioritized action plan.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Identify ads and keywords to pause
  • Find campaigns and audiences worth scaling
  • Assess whether A/B test results are meaningful
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

Turn code files into learning resources by adding comments that explain syntax, programming concepts, and design choices. Adjust explanation depth and repetition to the reader’s knowledge while preserving file structure, encoding, and syntax.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Add beginner-friendly explanations to existing code
  • Document the reasoning behind syntax and design choices
  • Adjust comment depth for readers with different experience
github/awesome-copilot4만2026년 10월 17일 업데이트

github의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고