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 KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude --skill incident-postmortemgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/KhaledSaeed18/dotclaudeWrote 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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/incident-postmortem)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/incident-postmortem"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/incident-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/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/incident-postmortem"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/khaledsaeed18/dotclaude/incident-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 | $0.00113 | $0.01060 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00045 | $0.00424 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00212 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00106 |
Grade A, and why
incident-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 28d 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 — 76 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
A postmortem exists so the same failure cannot happen the same way again. It is blameless because the person who typed the command is never the root cause; the system that let that command do damage is. Write it within a week, while the timeline is still recoverable.
Gather
- The timeline sources: alerts (first fired), chat channel export, deploy log, commits, dashboards (screenshots with timestamps), customer reports, the incident ticket.
- The fix: the PR or command that resolved it, and when the symptom cleared.
- Metrics for impact: requests failed, users affected, duration, data affected, revenue or SLO budget consumed.
Convert every timestamp to one timezone (UTC) with the local offset stated once.
Structure
# Postmortem: <short title> (INC-1234)
Date of incident: 2026-09-18 | Duration: 47 min (14:03 to 14:50 UTC) | Severity: SEV2
Authors: ... | Reviewed: ... | Status: action items open (3 of 5)
## Summary
Three sentences: what broke, who it affected and how much, what fixed it.
## Impact
Numbers: error rate, affected users or tenants, failed jobs, data written or lost, SLO budget burned, support tickets. What was NOT affected, if that matters.
## Timeline (UTC)
| Time | Event | Source |
| 13:58 | Deploy of api v2.41.0 starts (rollout 10%) | deploy log |
| 14:03 | Error rate on /orders rises to 12% | alert ORDERS-5XX |
| 14:07 | On-call acknowledges; suspects deploy | #incident |
| ... | ... | ... |
| 14:50 | Error rate back to baseline | dashboard |
## Root cause and contributing factors
The causal chain, from the trigger back through every condition that had to hold:
1. Trigger: v2.41.0 changed the order-status enum; the consumer in billing was not updated.
2. The contract between api and billing has no schema check in CI.
3. Canary at 10% did not include billing traffic, so the canary metrics stayed green.
4. The alert fired on 5xx rate but billing failures surfaced as 200s with an error body.
Each factor is a system property, not a person.
## Detection
How we found out (alert, customer, luck), how long it took, and what would have found it sooner.
## Response
What went well (name it: the rollback took 4 minutes). What was slow or confusing, and why (no runbook for X; two people rolled back different things).
## What we got lucky about
Anything that would have made it worse and did not happen.
## Action items
| # | Action | Addresses factor | Owner | Due | Status |
| 1 | Contract test between api and billing in CI | 2 | ... | 2026-10-02 | open |
| 2 | Canary routing includes billing traffic | 3 | ... | ... | ... |
| 3 | Billing errors return 5xx, alert on them | 4 | ... | ... | ... |
## Lessons
Two or three sentences a reader from another team can apply.
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.
- 28d ago First seen · 76 lines · 113 tokens per session scan A 65aefd205596
incident-postmortem is a skill published in the GitHub repository KhaledSaeed18/dotclaude (5 stars, last pushed 5d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 113 tokens to every session and 1,060 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-09-22.
Other skills, from other repositories
bug-triage
Re-evaluate open bugs — priority vs severity, assign to sprints, surface systemic trends. Run when the count grows.
incident-postmortem
Escribe un postmortem de incidente estructurado o revisión post-incidente. Úsalo cuando se te pida escribir un postmortem, reporte de incidente, revisión P1/P2, reporte de apagón o RCA (análisis de causa raíz). Produce un postmortem sin culpables con cronología, causa raíz, factores contribuyentes, resumen de impacto…
after-action-report
Run a structured after-action review (postmortem, retrospective) on a launch, incident, or completed project to capture timeline, root cause analysis, contributing factors, and actionable lessons. Use this skill whenever the user wants to run a postmortem, retrospective, AAR, or after-action review on any past event.…
stakeholder-communication
Communicate effectively with stakeholders across functions and seniority levels. Use this skill when writing status updates, preparing executive reviews, sharing technical decisions with non-technical audiences, managing up, communicating bad news, or designing the communication cadence for a project. Triggers on…
operating-cadence
Designs the rhythm an organization runs on — which reviews happen weekly, monthly and quarterly, what each one decides, who owns the numbers presented, and how a signal at the front line reaches the people who can act on it. Use this to set up a management operating system, fix a meeting calendar that produces no…
ast-grep
Searches and rewrites code by AST shape across 25 languages. Use when the target is a syntax pattern (every call/class/import shaped like X, a codemod, a YAML rule) rather than literal text; for plain strings, comments, or filenames, use rg.