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 HigorAlves/orc --skill postmortem-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HigorAlves/orcWrote 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/higoralves/orc/postmortem-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/higoralves/orc/postmortem-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/higoralves/orc/postmortem-writing/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/higoralves/orc/postmortem-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/higoralves/orc/postmortem-writing.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 | $0.00025 | $0.01259 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00504 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00252 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00126 |
Grade A, and why
postmortem-writing 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 6d 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 — 77 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Postmortem
Defer to
orc:doc-writingfor the shared scaffolding: the doc-type map (postmortem vs PRD/TRD/RFC/ADR, and how it differs fromsystematic-debugging), the shared section outline, the publication & numbering convention, and the review gates. This skill carries only the postmortem-specific template, blameless rules, and tone. Note: postmortems are date-keyed, not monotonically numbered (see the publication note inorc:doc-writing).
A postmortem is the artifact that turns an incident into organizational learning. The fix lands in code; the postmortem lands in the team's collective memory.
When to write one
Write one for:
- Any customer-visible incident (degraded service, errors, data loss, security event).
- Any incident that triggered an on-call page, regardless of customer impact.
- Near-misses caught before customer impact but caused by a real defect (a manual override, last-minute deploy revert, etc.).
- Recurring incidents of the same kind — even if individually minor, the recurrence itself is the incident.
Don't write a full postmortem for:
- Bugs caught in QA or by a pre-deploy CI signal
- Performance regressions that were rolled back within the same deploy window with no production impact
- Single-engineer "oops" caught by a teammate's review — the review was the safety net working
Blameless framing (non-negotiable)
A postmortem is blameless: it documents what the system (people + tools + processes) allowed to happen, not what an individual did wrong. This rule has three concrete consequences:
- Use roles, not names in the timeline and root-cause sections. "The deploying engineer" — not "Alice." Names are fine in the Contributors header (people who took action during/after) but not in causal language.
- Replace "human error" with the system question. "The engineer ran the wrong command" → "The deploy tool accepts a one-letter flag that's easily confused with another." The action item is on the tool, not on the engineer.
- No hindsight bias. What was knowable to the responder at the moment? "They should have noticed X" is bias unless X was actually visible on a dashboard they were looking at.
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.
- 6d ago Changed · -81 lines · -24 tokens per session dc8f0b4238e8
- 1mo ago First seen · 158 lines · 49 tokens per session scan A 933474502b99
postmortem-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository HigorAlves/orc (7 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 25 tokens to every session and 1,259 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
debug
Perform an evidence-based Parallax diagnosis or post-build audit and verify the repair.
parallax-core
Apply session-safe Parallax reasoning and verification to code changes.
fable-debug
Use when behavior contradicts expectation — a bug, an unexplained error, a failing test, output that looks wrong, a fix that didn't hold — or when you're about to retry the same category of fix a second time, or work keeps failing or stalling. Also when the user says "debug this", "why is this happening", or "still…
five-whys
Finds the root cause of a bug, failure or recurring problem by asking "why" until the answer is a cause you can fix. Use when the user asks why something keeps happening, or wants the root cause rather than a quick fix.
check-cache-bugs
Audit Claude Code setup for cache bugs (CC#40524): sentinel, --resume/--continue, attribution header + ArkNill B3/B4/B5.
sandbox-unblock
Diagnostic protocol to run before reporting a sandbox blocker or asking for a configuration change. Eleven checks that eliminate false positives, then a report template the person holding the settings can act on. On one measured day, six of eight reported blockers turned out to be false, all from the same handful of…