blameless-post-mortem

Facilitate a blame-free post-mortem after an incident or near-miss. Consumes the incident-commander skeleton, derives or fills the root cause, writes the corrective-action plan, and drafts an incident-learnings memory candidate. Systems and processes are examined — never individuals.

When to use

• An incident or outage is resolved and the team needs a structured write-up.
• A near-miss happened and a post-mortem is being drafted (near-miss mode — same flow, different severity framing).
• The incident-commander hands off a post-mortem skeleton (empty root cause is accepted — do not block on it).
• German triggers: "Post-mortem", "Nachbesprechung", "was ist schiefgelaufen?", "Vorfallsanalyse".

Do NOT use when:

• The incident is still active — route to incident-commander first.
• The goal is root-cause analysis only, no write-up needed — route to root-cause-frameworks.
• The concern is a future risk, not a past event — route to risk-officer.

Procedure

1. Consume the incident-commander skeleton

Read the incoming skeleton. Per docs/contracts/analysis-memory-loop.md § 5:

• Accept any skeleton, complete or not.
• Extract: SEV, State, Started, Timeline, Mitigation, Root cause (may be unknown or TBD).
• Do NOT stall or reject on an empty root cause.

If no skeleton is provided, reconstruct from the user's description: severity, timeline, impact, mitigation state.

2. Derive the root cause (if unresolved)

If root cause is unknown or TBD, invoke root-cause-frameworks. That skill returns ranked candidates with confidence levels — do NOT force a verdict. If root cause remains unresolved after the analysis pass, mark the post-mortem status: draft and continue. A draft post-mortem can still produce memory candidates (note the open question in the candidate summary).

3. Write the blame-free report

Sections in order — no individuals named, systems and processes only:

1. Summary — one paragraph, blame-free, what happened and the business impact.
2. Timeline — reference the skeleton timeline; do NOT rebuild it.
3. Impact — users affected, duration, data, revenue, SLA.
4. Detection — how the incident was discovered (monitoring, user report, alert, manual).
5. Root cause — the confirmed or highest-confidence candidate; state confidence level if draft.
6. Contributing factors — conditions that made the root cause possible (tooling gaps, process gaps, system state).
7. What went well — at least one item; omitting this is a smell.
8. What went wrong — process, tooling, signals, communication gaps. No individual blame.

Near-miss mode: same sections; set SEV: near-miss. Add two extra questions after "what went wrong":

• "What would have made this worse?"
• "Which control caught it — luck or a designed control?"

4. Corrective actions (folded-in phase)

For each identified gap, propose a corrective action. Reuse risk-officer mitigation framing: owner role, size, residual-risk note. Four action types:

Type	Purpose
Immediate	Stop recurrence now (config fix, kill switch, revert)
Preventive	Remove the root cause (architectural or process change)
Detection	Catch it sooner next time (alert, dashboard, runbook)
Process	Address human/coordination gaps (oncall rotation, docs)

Each action MUST have:

• Owner role (eng, ops, PO, support — never "the team")
• Closure criterion — specific, testable condition marking the action done
• Regression signal — a test, monitor, or alert that proves the fix held

An action without a closure criterion is a wish, not a plan.

5. Memory write-back

Per docs/contracts/analysis-memory-loop.md § 2:

1. Run the dedup pre-check — find_duplicate(...) from scripts/memory_lookup.ts over the same key-space (incident type, affected paths, decision area); a memory:lookup query over the same keys is the CLI equivalent.

2. Match found — propose a frequency / supersedes update to the existing entry; do NOT create a new candidate.

3. No match — draft a REDACTED incident-learnings candidate to /memory propose:

   • type: incident-learnings
   • summary: one-line pattern (no customer names, no secrets, no project-rooted paths)
   • evidence_paths: ≥ 2 file paths (for admission gate)
   • decision_surface: ≥ 3 decisions this pattern changes (if possible)
   • last_validated: today
   • review_after_days: 90
   • applicable_scope: project

4. NEVER auto-promote. The human drives promotion via /memory promote. If the candidate fails the admission gate (check_memory_proposal.ts), surface the gap to the user.

If the lookup surfaces stale entries (past review_after_days), surface them explicitly — never silently use stale data.

Output

The post-mortem produces, in order:

1. Post-mortem document — sections 1–8 from step 3; status final or draft if root cause is unresolved.
2. Corrective-action table — each action with type, owner, closure criterion, regression signal.
3. Memory candidate — the drafted incident-learnings JSONL snippet for /memory propose (or the frequency-update proposal if a duplicate was found).

Do NOT

• Do NOT blame individuals — name systems, processes, signals, tooling.
• Do NOT auto-promote to curated memory — the gate is human-driven.
• Do NOT skip the dedup pre-check before drafting a memory candidate.
• Do NOT ship raw PII, customer names, secrets, or project-rooted paths in the memory candidate (redact per the contract).
• Do NOT reject or stall on an incomplete skeleton — mark draft and continue.
• Do NOT rebuild the timeline from scratch — reference the skeleton's timeline.

Gotchas

• Incomplete skeleton → status: draft, not a rejection. Draft post-mortems still produce memory candidates with the open question noted.
• Near-miss → a mode within this skill, not a separate flow. Severity is near-miss; the extra two questions apply.
• Corrective actions without closure criteria are non-actionable. Always require a specific, testable done condition.
• Stale memory entries must be surfaced as stale, never merged into the findings. Never silently reuse stale data.

See also

• incident-commander — produces the skeleton this skill consumes; run first during live incidents.
• root-cause-frameworks — RCA engine invoked in step 2 when root cause is unresolved.
• risk-officer — mitigation framing reused for corrective actions (owner, size, residual-risk).
• docs/contracts/analysis-memory-loop.md — produce → propose → promote → retrieve contract this skill binds to.