「postmortem」の検索結果

Reliability engineering for cloud systems — SLIs, SLOs, error budgets, SRE practices, runbooks, incident response, on-call rotation, blameless postmortems, chaos engineering, and the NASA Systems Engineering methodology (MCR/SRR/PDR/CDR/ORR phase gates, TAID verification, requirements tracing) adapted to cloud operations. Use when establishing SLOs for a new service, running an incident, writing a runbook, preparing a launch readiness review, or bringing NASA SE discipline to cloud deployments.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use for 'why does X work this way', 'why we picked Y', design rationale, regressions, postmortems, or data-backed thresholds. Discovers available MCPs and queries each evidence category (source control, issue tracker, long-form docs, real-time chat, infrastructure observability, error tracking, product analytics warehouse) in parallel, then returns a cited read on decisions and tradeoffs. Use how for runtime behavior.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Investigate an alert, page, or production symptom in an incident channel or a team's oncall / monitoring channel, and report findings a human can verify. Ordinary conversation and chatter are not alerts; leave those alone. Use when an alert or page lands, when error rate, latency or saturation is up, when someone asks "why is X broken", "investigate", "what changed", "root cause this", pastes a monitor, dashboard, trace or error-tracker link, or reports production trouble; also by default when an alert lands in a covered channel unasked. Feed-level asks land here too ("which alerts matter", "triage today's alerts"), plus the scheduled alert-review routine and the ticket path ("customer X can't check out"). Runs a fast first pass posted as a short interim update with a TL;DR, every finding carrying the query or link to verify it, then proposes the fix and — with connector access and confirmation — carries it out, never unattended. Afterwards `incident-postmortem` writes it up.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Post a sitrep (situation report) for a live incident, in its incident channel: a short fixed-layout update for people who haven't read the whole channel — the current picture and what moved since the previous update. Use on "sitrep", "status update", "where are we", "what's the latest", "catch me up", "summarize the incident so far", when asked to keep posting on a schedule ("post a sitrep every hour until resolved"), or when the oncall memory sets an update cadence for this severity and the incident owner asks Claude to keep it. Reads the channel, alert thread and findings posted, re-reads the one key signal, and writes: status line, TL;DR, impact, what changed since the last sitrep, what's in progress and who has it, what's needed, when the next update comes, one chart. Facts come only from what people said or Claude read first-hand; cause and recovery time are never guessed. Fits one phone screen. Not investigation (`incident-investigate`) or the write-up afterwards (`incident-postmortem`).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

复盘文档编写时使用。适用于事故复盘 / 时间线 / 根因 / 改进项。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Apply the Minimum Sufficient Language (MSL) principle through the MSL Kernel to write anything a reader must act on. Bind the reader and what they already know, partition facts from the machinery that produced them, emit each admitted fact as an action, a verification, a judgment, or a state, and stop when every claim is checkable and the reader can act. Use for status updates, work-in-progress reports to your own user, closeout and convergence comments, tickets, pull request and review write-ups, incident and postmortem notes, emails, memos, and any draft for readers outside the work. Also use when the user says MSL, Minimum Sufficient Language, write this for stakeholders, drop the jargon, make this readable, or asks for a paste-ready draft.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Build psychological safety in your team using Simon Sinek's Leaders Eat Last Circle of Safety model and Amy Edmondson's research. Use when a leader says "my team doesn't speak up", "people are afraid to fail", "nobody challenges bad ideas", "people only tell me what I want to hear", "I want my team to take more risks", "there's a blame culture", "people hide mistakes", or "I want to create a safe environment". Also trigger when someone describes a team where postmortems turn into blame sessions, where people stay quiet in meetings and then vent privately, where mistakes are hidden until they become crises, or where the same person speaks 80% of the time in every meeting. Psychological safety is not about comfort - it is the condition that makes high performance possible.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when a task needs the judgment of a Coroner or medicolegal death investigator — determining whether a death is reportable/jurisdictional, distinguishing cause of death from manner of death, estimating a postmortem interval from scene findings, deciding whether an autopsy or toxicology screen is warranted, or completing a death certificate under scrutiny.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Apply the Fable-derived 10-stage OBSERVE, OBSERVE, LISTEN, THINK, CONNECT, CONNECT, FEEL, ACCEPT, CREATE, GROW loop to consequential or ambiguous reasoning and decisions. Use for think this through, deep think, architecture review, postmortem, tradeoff analysis, or challenges to assumptions. This is a reasoning review, not a deterministic vault health check or repair workflow.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run a full retrospective and dev cycle analysis. Chains /recall → /new-features to reconstruct what went wrong, extract lessons learned, identify rework patterns, and synthesize feature ideas from the findings. Triggers: retrospective, retro, dev cycle analysis, what went wrong, lessons learned, postmortem, sprint retro.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Weekly-cadence engineering retrospective. Analyzes commit history, work patterns, and code quality metrics with persistent history and trend tracking. Team-aware: breaks down per-person contributions with praise and growth areas. Use when asked to "weekly retro", "what did we ship", or "engineering retrospective". Proactively suggest at the end of a work week or sprint. NOT for per-session or per-task reflection (see mk:memory / Phase 6 Reflect).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Draft a Root Cause Analysis for an incident, outage, or repeated test failure. Unlike intake/spec/brd, RCA is not a workflow phase — it's a standalone postmortem artifact that often precedes a bugfix intake. Output lives at `docs/rca/<slug>.md`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns past decisions into calibrated judgment - scoring old predictions against what happened, assigning credit for delayed results, and separating a bad decision from a good decision that lost. Use during a retrospective, postmortem, quarterly or monthly review, when reviewing decisions taken 30+ days ago, when attributing a result to a cause, or when someone claims to have called something.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use for the 5 Whys, or when the user wants the root cause of a failure: "why did this happen?", "this keeps breaking", "write the postmortem", "find the real cause". Asks why repeatedly with evidence at each step, then sets countermeasures. Skip for one-off typos or when the cause is already proven.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Synthesises retrospective notes, closing reports and post-implementation reviews into a DRAFT lessons-learned document: themed lessons with source counts, anonymised quoted evidence graded by strength, repeats against a prior register, contradictions, and a recommended owner with a stated basis for each follow-up. Names no individual or vendor and assigns no blame. Use when the user asks to "compile the lessons learned", "write up the retrospective", "theme the close-out notes", "what did we learn across these projects" or "refresh the lessons register". Do not use for a single sprint's review, use sprint-review-summary instead; for an incident investigation, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for customer feedback themes, use customer-feedback-theme-synthesis. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Reads a risk register together with meeting notes and incident reports and returns a draft update pack: existing risks whose exposure, controls, ownership or status the sources say have changed, new risk candidates, closure candidates, and the one owner decision each item needs. Never assigns or changes a likelihood, impact, score or colour and never edits the register; owners decide. Use when the user asks to "update the risk register from these minutes", "refresh the register with the incidents since the last review", "reconcile the register against the notes" or "what changed on our risks". Do not use for writing up an incident itself, use incident-postmortem-drafter or data-incident-impact-brief instead; to track actions from minutes, use corrective-action-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns an engineer's notes, a ticket history or a chat thread into a draft step-by-step runbook with preconditions, stop conditions, numbered steps with checks, verification, rollback and escalation, for the team to validate before use. Commands verbatim, placeholders marked, every gap UNKNOWN; never executes a step or fills a gap from general knowledge. Use when the user asks to "write a runbook from these notes", "turn this resolved ticket into a runbook", "document the steps we ran" or "check this runbook for gaps". Do not use for a business process without commands, use sop-drafter instead; for a knowledge article or known-error record, use knowledge-article-drafter; for the post-incident review, use incident-postmortem-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Drafts one knowledge article or known-error article from a resolved incident or ticket thread: symptoms as reported, environment, cause exactly as the resolver stated it, resolution steps as performed, workaround with its limits, verification, things tried without effect, related records, keywords and proposed metadata, every statement traced to a ticket note or marked UNKNOWN, with a redaction log and a question list for the knowledge owner. Never decides a root cause, adds a step or publishes. Use when the user asks to "write a KB article from this ticket", "turn this resolved incident into a knowledge article", "draft a known error record for this", "document the fix we just did" or "make this thread into a how-to for the service desk". Do not use for a procedure the team will execute (runbook, operating procedure, playbook), use runbook-drafter instead; for a post-incident review, use incident-postmortem-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns reported data problems (messages, tickets, meeting notes, complaints) into one DRAFT issue log: one row per issue with the symptom as reported, dataset and fields named, reproduction steps, affected reports, first seen date, reporters, a suggested owner, and blank severity, root cause and status cells for the owner. Never asserts a root cause, severity or fix. Use when the user asks to "log these data issues", "turn these complaints about the numbers into an issue list", "build the data quality backlog", "which reports are hit by this data problem" or "write up the reproduction steps for this data bug". Do not use for exploring or profiling a dataset, use dataset-insight-pack instead; for an IT incident write-up, use incident-postmortem-drafter; for tracking fix actions once assigned, use corrective-action-tracker. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns one long support ticket thread (helpdesk history, email chain, chat transcript, call notes) into a one-page DRAFT escalation summary: the customer's ask in their own words, account context as stated, a dated history, what was tried and the stated result of each attempt, the current state, and what is needed from whom by when, every line referenced to a message and every missing fact marked UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "escalate this ticket", "summarise this thread for tier two", "write the hand-over for this case", "what has been tried so far", "brief engineering on this customer issue" or "prepare the escalation note". Do not use for a batch of tickets, use ticket-triage-pack instead; for the review after an outage, use incident-postmortem-drafter. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use for 'why does X work this way', 'why we picked Y', design rationale, regressions, postmortems, or data-backed thresholds. Discovers available MCPs and queries each evidence category (source control, issue tracker, long-form docs, real-time chat, infrastructure observability, error tracking, product analytics warehouse) in parallel, then returns a cited read on decisions and tradeoffs. Use how for runtime behavior.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Handle production incidents — triage, mitigate, communicate, and write postmortems.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Write, review, and improve blog posts for the Sentry engineering blog following Sentry's specific writing standards, voice, and quality bar. Use this skill whenever someone asks to write a blog post, draft a technical article, review blog content, improve a draft, write a product announcement, create an engineering deep-dive, or produce any written content destined for the Sentry blog or developer audience. Also trigger when the user mentions "blog post," "blog draft," "write-up," "announcement post," "engineering post," "deep dive," "postmortem," or asks for help with technical writing for Sentry. Even if the user just says "help me write about [feature/topic]" — if it sounds like it could become a Sentry blog post, use this skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Google-grade software engineering culture encompassing Code Readability, Design Doc Review, Blameless Postmortem, Testing Philosophy, Code Review standards, and engineering excellence practices distilled from Google's internal engineering culture documented in "Software Engineering at Google" and real Google/Brain/DeepMind experience. USE WHEN: establishing engineering standards, reviewing code quality, designing development workflows, onboarding engineers, setting code review guidelines, adopting Google-level engineering excellence, or building an engineering culture that promotes maintainability, readability, and quality.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。