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 skills/boshu2/agentops/postmortemnpx skills add boshu2/agentops --skill postmortemgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boshu2/agentopsWhat 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 | $0.00035 | $0.00957 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00478 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00191 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00096 |
Grade A, and why
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 2d 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 — 107 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Postmortem
Purpose: Answer an explicit retrospective causal question using the already-validated outcome and evidence.
Critical Constraints
- Because proof and causal inference are different judgments, Postmortem is retrospective causal analysis, not the general learning umbrella and not a completion gate.
- It consumes immutable Validate verdict evidence and does not re-run acceptance validation because Validate already owns that proof.
- Treat causal statements as hypotheses because causal confidence must survive alternatives. Separate observed sequence, contributing conditions, counterfactuals, and unknowns.
- A correlation is not promoted to cause without evidence that discriminates plausible alternatives.
- Because the caller owns delivery decisions, do not rewrite proof, operate tracker state, change the remaining plan, or promote a rule. Return evidence to the caller.
- Empty or inconclusive analysis is valid; manufacture neither certainty nor a lesson to make the retrospective feel useful.
Workflow
- Pin the verdict, subject evidence, and explicit causal question.
- Reconstruct the evidence-backed timeline without importing hidden author reasoning as fact.
- List candidate contributing conditions and at least one plausible alternative explanation.
- Test each claim against cited evidence and a counterfactual: what should differ if the claim were false?
- Optionally use independent judges to challenge contested causal claims.
- Emit a report containing supported claims, rejected claims, unknowns, evidence references, and suggested experiments. Stop.
Correlation-to-cause discrimination
A fix is proven when the mechanism is demonstrated, not when symptoms stop. Promoting a claim from correlation to cause requires all three:
- a stated mechanism — the specific path by which the condition produced the outcome, in terms a reader could check against the subject;
- discriminating evidence — an observation that the mechanism predicts and at least one plausible alternative does not;
- a counterfactual test — what should have differed if the claim were false, with the cited evidence showing it did differ.
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.
- 2d ago First seen · 107 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A e46937a20b5d
postmortem is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshu2/agentops (431 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 957 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
brainstorm
Explore vague or ambitious ideas into a right-sized requirements-only plan. Use when the user wants to brainstorm, think through scope, decide what to build, or needs collaborative product framing before planning, not for a decisive verdict on whether to adopt or switch to a specific external technology, library, or…
doc-review
Use when the user asks to review or critique a prose planning document — a plan, spec, PRD, requirements doc, or design doc.
audit-project
Run an iterative multi-agent code audit until critical and high findings are resolved. Use when the user says "audit my code", "find all the bugs", "deep code audit", "iterative review", or "review until clean".
autolearn
Compound a solved problem into a durable in-repo learning doc. Use when a verified non-trivial fix lands, the user says "compound this", "document this fix", or "remember this". This is the automatic-capture entry point; for an explicitly requested one-off write-up, use compound.
doubt-driven
Doubt-driven adversarial review. Use when correctness matters more than speed, the code is unfamiliar, stakes are high, a claim can't be checked by the type system or compiler, or verifying now is cheaper than debugging later.
drift-detect
Use when the user says "plan drift", asks whether the roadmap, plans, or docs still match the code, or is deciding what to rebuild when restarting a stalled project. For doc-vs-code drift inside a specific diff, use sync-docs.