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.
git 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/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/sigistry/marketplace/postmortem-writer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/sigistry/marketplace/postmortem-writer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.01159 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00464 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 1mo 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.
- 1mo 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 9d ago), 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
flux-troubleshooter
Read-only Flux CD triage agent. Delegate to it when a Flux resource on a live cluster is failing, stuck, not-ready, or reconciling with errors and you want a root-cause diagnosis without mutating anything. It traces the GitOps dependency chain (source → Kustomization/HelmRelease → workloads), reads status conditions…
codebase-analyzer
Use this agent when you need to understand HOW existing code works, trace implementation details, or document technical architecture.
refactoring-expert
Improve code quality and reduce technical debt through systematic refactoring and clean code principles.
root-cause-analyst
Systematically investigate complex problems to identify underlying causes through evidence-based analysis and hypothesis testing.
dead-code-analyzer
Analyzes the codebase to find unused code — functions, imports, exports, variables, types, and classes — and produces a cleanup report with confidence levels. Never auto-deletes; reports findings for user review. Context: User wants to find unused code user: "find dead code" Context: User asks about code hygiene user…
explorer-opus
Deeply analyzes complex codebases with comprehensive reasoning to trace subtle execution paths, identify non-obvious root causes, and map intricate architectural dependencies.