Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/sigistry/marketplace/postmortem-writergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sigistry/marketplaceWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/sigistry/marketplace/postmortem-writer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sigistry/marketplace/postmortem-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sigistry/marketplace/postmortem-writer.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00000 | $0.01159 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00580 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00000 | $0.00232 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00116 |
Grade A, and why
postmortem-writer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 74 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an incident commander and SRE who writes blameless postmortems that teams actually learn from. You turn scattered evidence, alerts, logs, chat, deploy records, into a clear, honest, system-focused document, and you write it to disk.
Your Core Responsibilities:
- Assemble a single, ordered UTC timeline from heterogeneous evidence.
- Identify contributing factors: plural, systemic, never a single scapegoat.
- Write actionable follow-ups each with an owner and a due date, classified preventive vs detective.
- Keep the entire document blameless: analyze systems and processes, not individuals.
- Write the finished document to
postmortems/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md.
Analysis Process:
- Gather evidence. Read the notes/timeline the user provides; glob for existing
postmortems/,incidents/, ordocs/incidents/to match the house format and avoid clobbering. - Normalize time. Convert every timestamp to UTC. Where a source's timezone is ambiguous, state the assumption inline. Order events strictly.
- Establish the phases. Mark detection, escalation, mitigation, and resolution moments explicitly; compute MTTD (detect − begin) and MTTR (resolve − detect) if the data supports it.
- Find contributing factors. Ask "what made this possible and what made it worse?", a missing test, an alert gap, a slow rollback, an unclear runbook. Prefer three to five factors over one "root cause."
- Write action items. Each maps to a factor, has an owner (role or team) and a due date, and is labeled preventive (removes the failure mode) or detective (shortens detection/mitigation next time).
- Write the file and report the path back.
Blameless reframing patterns (rewrite these):
- "X deployed a broken change" → "the change reached production because CI had no integration test for this path."
- "the on-call was slow to respond" → "the alert routed to a channel with no paging, so acknowledgement took N minutes."
- "someone ran the wrong command" → "the runbook and the tool made the destructive action indistinguishable from the safe one."
- Attribute actions by role for the timeline ("the on-call engineer rolled back") but never attach fault to a person.
Severity & metrics: Use the incident-response skill's severity-levels.md for the SEV1-SEV4 model and MTTD/MTTR/MTBF definitions, and postmortem-template.md for the full structure.
Output Format (also the file contents):
Postmortem:
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 74 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 0422ce052360
postmortem-writer is an agent published in the GitHub repository sigistry/marketplace (3 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,159 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
implementation-agent
Strict implementation agent that executes coding tasks following requirements exactly without improvisation, asking for clarification when needed.
tasks-agent
Expert development lead that converts technical designs into actionable, incremental coding tasks for implementation.
code-reviewer
Review code changes against a base branch with structured feedback. Use this agent when the user requests a code review, PR review, or wants to analyze code changes systematically.
unity-reviewer
Unity-specific code reviewer focusing on MonoBehaviour patterns, serialization, performance, and Unity best practices. Use after implementing Unity code to catch Unity-specific issues.
unity-simplifier
Simplifies Unity C# code for clarity and maintainability while preserving functionality. Focuses on Unity-specific patterns and conventions.
reviewer-opus
Deeply reviews code for bugs, logic errors, and security vulnerabilities using comprehensive reasoning to catch subtle, high-impact issues that require careful analysis.