← Explore all skills

PLANNING AND DELIVERY / GitHub community

Incident Post-Mortem

Walks a team from incident metadata through a reconstructed timeline, blameless 5-Whys root cause, quantified impact and owned action items, into a complete postmortem document with a common-mistakes table.

“Use when an outage, production incident, or significant service degradation has occurred and the team needs to write a structured blameless post-mortem. …”

01 / THE REASONING

Why this made the selection.

  • The blameless principle is operational, not aspirational: a common-mistakes table rewrites 'Bob forgot to check the config' into 'the deploy checklist did not include config validation' and treats human error as a symptom, never a root cause.
  • Action items are held to a hard standard — a named individual owner, a due date, and 'improve monitoring' explicitly rejected in favour of which service, which metric, what threshold, by when.
  • The full output template (summary, impact table, UTC timeline, root cause, contributing factors, what went well, action items, lessons) is ready to save as a document rather than an outline.

02 / THE REVIEW RECORD

What we actually inspected.

Source review has boundaries.
A clear record is more useful than a “safe” badge.

Material inspected

  • skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md (complete, 204 lines)
  • repository LICENSE (MIT)
  • awesome-copilot skills directory listing
  • SKILL.md and LICENSE re-read at 7cce7cfb on 2026-10-13 for the downloadable definition; both byte-identical at HEAD 156736fb (git blob SHAs).
  • skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md
  • vercel-labs/skills@7407f3893ad4dceab546ac002c3ef806e4000c73:README.md
  • LICENSE

Our findings

  • The document defines blameless language up front — 'the system did not', 'the process lacked', 'the alert did not fire' — and enforces it again in the common-mistakes table.
  • The 5-Whys chain is worked end to end from crash-looping pods to missing load-test fixtures, and stops at a system gap that maps to a concrete action item.
  • Timeline reconstruction is instructed to check logs, alerts and PagerDuty rather than memory, and to flag unknown intervals explicitly.
  • The impact step distinguishes detection-to-resolution duration from symptom-start duration. Its action-item rules require named individuals although the illustrative table contains team handles.

Not established by this review

  • No postmortem was written from a real incident; the workflow was read, not run.
  • The output template was not rendered against a team's actual incident record.
  • Not executed: it was not installed or run.

The review applies to the material and revision named here. A newer upstream release can change its behavior.

03 / PUT IT TO WORK

Add a skill to your workflow.

Upstream setup instructions ↗

DOCUMENTED COMMAND

npx skills add github/awesome-copilot/skills/incident-postmortem --skill incident-postmortem

Run in your terminal to choose your AI tools, project or global scope, and installation method. This short command follows the current upstream version; the review covers the revision shown above.

Optional: install the reviewed revision

Keeps the original source and installer version where recorded, while leaving your AI tools and installation scope for you to choose.

npx skills add https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/tree/7cce7cfb4b61196c36d7e8eb8475ae84b356b126/skills/incident-postmortem --skill incident-postmortem
  1. Install the skill directory; it is a single self-contained SKILL.md.
  2. Bring the incident details — or let the skill ask for them section by section — and expect a save-ready document plus an owned action-item table.
  3. For manual installation instead, download the complete bundle from https://undominated.ai/resources/skills/github-incident-postmortem/bundle.zip and extract it into a new directory. It holds SKILL.md unchanged at revision 7cce7cfb, the upstream licence and an attribution file.
  4. Place the extracted directory in your host's documented skills directory, named incident-postmortem. Keep SKILL.md and the licence together.

Before you start

  • Node.js/npm for the installer
  • An agent that supports the Agent Skills format
  • Incident facts: times, severity, affected services, timeline evidence from logs and alerts

THE COMPLETE REVIEWED DEFINITION

Read it before you reuse it.

Original source bytes, with attribution.
Review the host-specific setup notes above.

---
name: incident-postmortem
description: '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.'
---

# 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:

| # | Action | Owner | Due Date | Priority |
|---|--------|-------|----------|----------|
| 1 | Add load test fixtures for accounts > 10k records | @eng-team | 2026-07-01 | High |
| 2 | Lower memory alert threshold from 90% to 75% | @platform | 2026-06-23 | High |
| 3 | Add runbook for memory OOM pods | @on-call-rotation | 2026-06-30 | Medium |

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

```markdown
# 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

| Mistake | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| "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 owners | Every item needs a named individual, not a team |
| Timeline reconstructed from memory | Check logs, alerts, Slack, PagerDuty before writing |
| "Improve monitoring" as an action | Specify: which service, which metric, what threshold, by when |
| Post-mortem written weeks later | Write within 48–72 hours while context is fresh |

The download contains SKILL.md. Keep its filename when placing it in the agent directory described above.

By GitHub community. Exact upstream source ↗ · Licence · Attribution

SHA-256 0492b8e05eba16cf045041b519536f906b06b278c77a0a33b4b947ed0b79176b

Read the applicable licence
MIT License

Copyright GitHub, Inc.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

04 / FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

The source trail.

Our notes are separate from the original resource.
Check upstream before adopting a new version.

  1. https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/7cce7cfb4b61196c36d7e8eb8475ae84b356b126/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md

    Supports: summary, upstreamDescription, whySelected, bestFor, limitations, review, access

  2. https://github.com/github/awesome-copilot/blob/7cce7cfb4b61196c36d7e8eb8475ae84b356b126/LICENSE

    Supports: license

  3. https://github.com/vercel-labs/skills/blob/7407f3893ad4dceab546ac002c3ef806e4000c73/README.md

    Supports: install

  4. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/github/awesome-copilot/7cce7cfb4b61196c36d7e8eb8475ae84b356b126/skills/incident-postmortem/SKILL.md

    Supports: review.findings, bestFor, limitations, upstreamDescription

Evidence & Ask