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 skills add ArdurAI/ardur-agent --skill write-postmortemgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ArdurAI/ardur-agentWrote 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/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/write-postmortem)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/write-postmortem"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/write-postmortem/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/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/write-postmortem"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ardurai/ardur-agent/write-postmortem.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 | $0.00021 | $0.01179 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00472 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00236 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00118 |
Grade A, and why
write-postmortem 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 — 108 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Writing a postmortem
A postmortem exists to make the same failure less likely next time. It is not a status report, not a defense, and not a record of who was at fault. Its value is entirely in the action items it produces and whether they get done.
The single most important word is blameless. The moment a postmortem reads as "Alice deployed the bad change", people stop being honest, and you lose the information you need to actually fix the system. Humans operating a system as designed will occasionally make mistakes; if a single human error could take the system down, the system is the problem to fix, not the human.
Use the skeleton in @./template.md to draft. The guidance below is how to fill
it well.
1. Timeline — what happened, when
A factual, timestamped sequence. No interpretation yet.
- Start before the incident: the change or condition that set it up.
- Mark the key moments: when it began, when it was detected, when it was acknowledged, key diagnostic and mitigation steps, when it was resolved.
- Use absolute timestamps with a timezone. "About 20 minutes later" is useless to a future reader reconstructing the sequence.
- Write what was known at the time, not what you know now with hindsight. "The on-call saw queue depth rising and assumed a traffic spike" is honest and useful; "obviously it was the bad deploy" is hindsight and unfair.
Two derived numbers fall out of a good timeline and are worth stating: time-to-detect (incident start to detection) and time-to-resolve (detection to resolution). They tell you whether to invest in better alerting or faster mitigation.
2. Impact — who and how much, quantified
- User-facing effect: what could users not do, and for how long.
- Scope: how many users, which regions/tenants, what fraction of traffic.
- Quantify it: requests failed, revenue affected, SLA/error budget consumed, data lost or delayed. A number makes the cost concrete and justifies the follow-up work.
3. Contributing factors — not "the root cause"
What ships with it
1 file beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 · 108 lines · 21 tokens per session scan A 7a1c33c8a38b
write-postmortem is a skill published in the GitHub repository ArdurAI/ardur-agent (2 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 21 tokens to every session and 1,179 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. 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 skills, from other repositories
worktree
Use when the user requests a Git worktree or a development task needs an isolated directory to create, find, reuse, hand off, or clean up. Exclude read-only work, non-Git repositories, and tasks that need no separate branch or directory.
member-studio
Use to create a Rovai member or revise and confirm the unsaved identity card and avatar for that creation. Exclude profile questions, edits to existing members, and character or avatar designs without roster creation.
analyze-agent-codebase
Use to analyze an agent system's architecture or mechanisms from repository evidence, including follow-up questions and analysis documents. Exclude ordinary code review, implementation, fixes, and conceptual questions that need no repository evidence.
grill-duo-with-docs
Clarify a plan or design with one fixed Thread reviewer while maintaining confirmed domain language, current specifications and version decisions. Applies to the initiator and invited reviewer during that exchange; excludes solo questions, group debates and questioning without documentation work.
review-duo
Review a defined code change with two Thread members independently checking standards, quality and requirements. Applies to the initiator and invited reviewer through the final report; excludes solo review, undefined scope and implementation-only requests.
cli-operations
Choose among Rovai messages, Missions, history and Memory; coordinate parallel member requests, multi-step operations or recovery. For one known operation, use its command help directly.