「postmortem」の検索結果

Write a blameless incident postmortem under postmortems/ following the Google SRE shape — evidence-based timeline, trigger vs root cause vs symptom, contributing factors, what went well, and owned+dated+verifiable action items. Read when asked to write a postmortem, do an incident review, run a root cause analysis, write up the outage, retro on the outage, or when the user says we had an incident and wants it documented. Do NOT read to frame a proposal (use frame-a-proposal), write a spec (use write-a-spec), record a decision (use record-a-decision), or review a design (use review-a-design) — a postmortem documents an incident that already happened, it does not propose, specify, decide, or critique future work.

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 a blameless postmortem after an incident. Use when the user says "postmortem", "post-incident review", "PIR", "what happened in that incident", "incident review", "blameless postmortem", "5 whys", "how do we prevent this again", or needs to document learnings from a production incident - even if they don't explicitly say "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。

[omh] Postmortem for an outage or SLO miss: postmortems, SLOs, error budgets, incident follow-ups, and service reliability evidence. Use when the user says: reliability-review, reliability review, incident review, incident postmortem, postmortem, post-mortem, slo review, slo.

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 blameless postmortem for an incident caused by an AI agent or LLM feature — hallucinated facts shipped to users, runaway tool use, prompt injection, cost blowouts, or wrong actions taken autonomously. Use when asked to write up an AI incident, analyse why an agent did something wrong, or produce corrective actions after an LLM failure. Produces a structured postmortem with trace reconstruction, a root-cause layer analysis, and corrective actions including a permanent regression case. For non-AI production incidents use 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。

Run a structured after-action review (postmortem, retrospective) on a launch, incident, or completed project to capture timeline, root cause analysis, contributing factors, and actionable lessons. Use this skill whenever the user wants to run a postmortem, retrospective, AAR, or after-action review on any past event. Triggers on after-action report, AAR, postmortem, retrospective, retro, post-incident review, what went well what didn't, lessons learned, blameless postmortem, root cause analysis, RCA, five whys. Also triggers when the user has just shipped something or just resolved an incident and wants to capture learnings.

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。

Analyze escaped defects and test suite health through blameless postmortems. Covers bug pattern analysis, test suite health reviews, 5 Whys root cause analysis, process improvement cycles, and postmortem/retro meeting templates with action item tracking. Use when: "QA retro," "escaped bugs," "postmortem," "quality incident," "defect analysis," "improvement cycle." Not for: live release go/no-go decisions — use release-readiness. Not for ongoing metric dashboards — use qa-metrics. Not for reviewing existing test code quality — use ai-qa-review. Related: qa-metrics, test-reliability, test-strategy.

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 effective blameless postmortems with root cause analysis, timelines, and action items. Use when conducting incident reviews, writing postmortem documents, or improving incident response processes.

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。

Periodic sweep that finds incidents marked resolved in {{incident_channel}}, correlates the channel timeline against GitHub deploys/merges and Datadog log spikes over the incident window, and drafts a structured postmortem as a PR under {{postmortem_path}} in {{target_repo}} — root cause and action items proposed, never finalized.

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。

Track investment theses across their lifecycle — from screening idea to closed position with postmortem. Register theses from screener outputs, manage state transitions, attach position sizing, review due dates, and generate postmortem reports with P&L and MAE/MFE analysis. Trigger when user says "register thesis", "track this idea", "thesis status", "review due", "close position", "postmortem", or "trading journal".

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 effective blameless postmortems with root cause analysis, timelines, and action items. Use when conducting incident reviews, writing postmortem documents, or improving incident response processes.

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 analyzing failures, outages, incidents, or negative outcomes, conducting blameless postmortems, documenting root causes with 5 Whys or fishbone diagrams, identifying corrective actions with owners and timelines, learning from near-misses, establishing prevention strategies, or when user mentions postmortem, incident review, failure analysis, RCA, lessons learned, or after-action review.

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。

Expert in running effective incident postmortems. Covers blameless analysis, root cause investigation, action item prioritization, and building a learning culture. Understands that incidents are opportunities to improve systems, not punish people. Use when "postmortem, incident review, what went wrong, root cause, blameless, outage, post-incident, " mentioned.

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 the postmortem for an incident, in its incident channel, once it is mitigated or resolved. Use on "write up this incident", "postmortem", "incident summary", "what happened here for people who weren't around", "draft the retro", or when the oncall memory says incidents of this severity get one. Reads the incident channel (and the alert thread it came from), the investigation findings and the data behind them, and writes a one-screen, zero-context write-up: what happened, impact with numbers, detection, timeline with durations, why it happened, what fixed it, follow-ups with proposed owners, and one before/during/after chart. Posted and pinned in the incident channel as its final pinned post, with edit requests updating that one pinned post in place — unless the person or the team's conventions say write-ups live elsewhere, in which case it is written there and only a link is posted, nothing pinned. A person edits and publishes it; never assigns blame.

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。

事故复盘时使用。适用于 P1/P2 事故后 24~72 小时内的 Blameless Postmortem。融合 Google SRE Postmortem + 5 Whys + 改进项跟踪。

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 effective blameless postmortems with root cause analysis, timelines, and action items. Use when conducting incident reviews, writing postmortem documents, or improving incident response processes.

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。

At the close of an epic (or a difficult issue), post a postmortem roundup comment — what went well, what was hard (backed by evidence), and 1–3 concrete proposals to improve the skills/flows — then offer to turn accepted proposals into their own `workflow`-labeled tasks, and end with a `🔭 Next` handoff (a paste-ready next-session prompt + the next epic to start). Use at epic close, after the "verify the whole thing" rollup, or when asked to "do a retro", "postmortem this epic", "what did we learn", "how do we improve the 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。

Drafts a blameless incident postmortem (summary, impact, timeline, detection and response, contributing factors as candidates for review, action items) from an incident channel export, ticket notes and any alert or change records, with UNKNOWN for every fact the inputs do not contain. Never assigns blame, names a root cause or re-rates severity. Use when the user asks to "write the postmortem for this incident", "build the incident timeline from the chat export", "draft the post-incident review" or "turn this ticket and channel log into an incident report". Do not use for a knowledge article from the resolved ticket, use knowledge-article-drafter instead; for project retrospectives, use lessons-learned-synthesis; for data-breach impact and notification questions, use data-incident-impact-brief. 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。

Creates comprehensive post-incident documents with timeline, root cause analysis, contributing factors, action items, and ownership. Follows SRE best practices for blameless postmortems. Use for "postmortem", "incident review", "RCA", or "post-incident".

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 an incident response workflow — triage, communicate, and write postmortem. Trigger with "we have an incident", "production is down", an alert that needs severity assessment, a status update mid-incident, or when writing a blameless postmortem after resolution.

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。

/em:postmortem — Honest analysis of what went wrong. Use after a failed launch, missed quarter, or bad hire to run a blameless 5-Whys retrospective with a change register — e.g. dissecting why the Q3 release slipped six weeks.

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。

Structured incident investigation using Five Whys, Fishbone, blameless Postmortem, Fault Tree, Kepner-Tregoe, and FMEA — traces failures to systemic root causes rather than blaming humans. USE WHEN root cause, RCA, 5 whys, fishbone, postmortem, incident analysis, fault tree, why does this keep failing, blameless, recurring bug. NOT FOR systemic loops (use SystemsThinking).

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。

Scope a feature end to end and write an implementation spec under specs/ from an accepted proposal — current-system mapping, goals/non-goals, a Decision Log for one-way-door choices, a live Open Questions backlog, and a real migration + test plan. Read when asked to write a spec, scope this feature, turn this proposal into a spec, plan the implementation, or break this into tasks. Do NOT fire on frame a proposal or write the PRD (sibling frame-a-proposal — a PRD frames a change before it is accepted; this skill starts once one is), record a decision or write the ADR (record-a-decision), write a postmortem (write-a-postmortem), or review this design (review-a-design) — those are separate skills. Complements the platform open-knowledge skill; does not replace it.

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。

Frame a new design proposal (RFC-shape) under proposals/ — problem before solution, named beneficiary and observable change, real alternatives, honest drawbacks, and a live open-questions backlog. Read when asked to frame a proposal, write an RFC, propose a design, pitch a change, draft a PRD-style design doc, or open a design proposal for review. Do NOT read to record a decision after it is accepted (use record-a-decision), to write an implementation spec (use write-a-spec), to write a postmortem (use write-a-postmortem), or to review or critique an existing design (use review-a-design).

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。

How to work in a Software Lifecycle project (the `software-lifecycle` starter pack): proposals → decisions → specs → postmortems, plus guides. Read when the project has these folders, or when asked how this project is organized. Carries the doc lifecycle, status flows, and per-folder agent behaviors so that guidance does not live inside template bodies or folder descriptions. The five workflows — frame a proposal, write a spec, record a decision, write a postmortem, review a design — each ship as their own sibling skill in this pack. Complements the platform `open-knowledge` skill; does not replace it.

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。