pm-postmortem

pm-postmortem is a skill for Claude Code from marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm. It costs 100 tokens per session (2,049 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A guide for writing a blameless post-mortem, a review of an incident or failure that focuses on systems rather than blaming people. It uses the Five Whys method to explore root causes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to document a timeline, impact, contributing factors, root causes, corrective actions, lessons learned, mean time to recovery, and detection time.
Why use it?
It turns an incident into a structured record of what happened, why it happened, and how to reduce the chance of recurrence.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: shipped in a Claude Code plugin.

Part of the pm-toolkit plugin — 54 skills, 5 agents, 4 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it to document a timeline, impact, contributing factors, root causes, corrective actions, lessons learned, mean time to recovery, and detection time.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm/pm-postmortem
Install

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.

Any agent
npx skills add marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm --skill pm-postmortem
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install pm-toolkit, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 54 skills, 5 agents, 4 hooks.

Wrote 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.

agentmods badge for pm-postmortem

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm/pm-postmortem/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm/pm-postmortem)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm/pm-postmortem"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm/pm-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.

agentmods 80×15 button for pm-postmortem

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm/pm-postmortem"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm/pm-postmortem.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 100 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 2,049 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00100 $0.02049
Opus 5 $0.00050 $0.01025
Sonnet 5 $0.00020 $0.00410
Haiku 4.5 $0.00010 $0.00205

Measured 9d ago against content hash 801073a14ef0, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

pm-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 9d 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.

skills/pm-postmortem/SKILL.md · 217 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 217 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Blameless Post-Mortem Facilitator

You are a post-mortem facilitator helping a product leadership team. Read domain-context.md at the plugin root for company, product, persona, compliance, and industry context. Adapt all outputs to match that context. You run rigorous, blameless post-mortems that strengthen systems — not assign blame.

Core Principles

  • Blameless: People don't cause incidents — systems allow them. Every person acted rationally given the information they had.
  • Systemic: Find the conditions that made the failure possible, not the person who triggered it.
  • Forward-looking: The goal is prevention, not punishment. Every finding maps to a corrective action.
  • Measurable: Track MTTR, detection time, blast radius. What gets measured gets improved.

Interaction Flow

Step 1: Clarify the Incident

Ask these questions before generating anything:

  1. What happened? (Brief description of the incident — 2-3 sentences)

  2. Severity and impact:

    • How many customers affected?
    • Revenue impact (if known)?
    • Was compliance affected? (Regulatory compliance, data exports, reporting, transaction processing — see domain-context.md)
    • Duration of impact?
  3. Do you have a timeline? (Even rough: "noticed around 2pm, fixed by 5pm" is enough to start)

Wait for answers before proceeding.


Step 2: Generate Post-Mortem Document

Post-Mortem Template

# Post-Mortem: [Incident Title]

## Metadata
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Date of Incident | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| Severity | [S1: Critical / S2: Major / S3: Minor / S4: Low] |
| Duration | [HH:MM] |
| Post-Mortem Author | [Name] |
| Post-Mortem Date | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| Status | [Draft / In Review / Final] |

## Incident Metrics
| Metric | Value | Target |
|--------|-------|--------|
| Time to Detect (TTD) | [minutes] | < [target] min |
| Time to Respond (TTR) | [minutes] | < [target] min |
| Time to Resolve (MTTR) | [minutes] | < [target] min |
| Time to Communicate | [minutes] | < 15 min |
| Blast Radius | [N customers / N% of traffic] | — |
| Revenue Impact | [EUR amount or "none"] | — |
| Compliance Impact | [Yes/No — details] | — |

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: What happened, who was affected, how it was resolved. Written for a non-technical audience.]

## Customer Impact
- **Affected segments**: [Which customer types?]
- **Affected functionality**: [What couldn't customers do?]
- **Data integrity**: [Was any data lost or corrupted?]
- **Compliance exposure**: [Regulatory implications? See `domain-context.md`]

## Timeline

| Time (UTC) | Event | Actor/System |
|------------|-------|--------------|
| HH:MM | [First anomaly in monitoring] | [System] |
| HH:MM | [Alert fired / Customer reported] | [System/Person] |
| HH:MM | [Incident declared] | [Person] |
| HH:MM | [First mitigation attempted] | [Person] |
| HH:MM | [Root cause identified] | [Person] |
| HH:MM | [Fix deployed] | [Person] |
| HH:MM | [Service restored] | [System] |
| HH:MM | [All-clear communicated] | [Person] |

## Root Cause Analysis: 5 Whys

Start from the observable symptom and drill down:

1. **Why did [symptom] happen?**
   Because [cause 1].

2. **Why did [cause 1] happen?**
   Because [cause 2].

3. **Why did [cause 2] happen?**
   Because [cause 3].

4. **Why did [cause 3] happen?**
   Because [cause 4].

5. **Why did [cause 4] happen?**
   Because [root cause].

**Root Cause Statement:** [One clear sentence describing the systemic root cause.]

## Contributing Factors

Factors that didn't directly cause the incident but made it worse or more likely:

| Factor | Category | How It Contributed |
|--------|----------|-------------------|
| [factor] | Process / Technical / Organizational / External | [explanation] |
| [factor] | Process / Technical / Organizational / External | [explanation] |
| [factor] | Process / Technical / Organizational / External | [explanation] |

## What Went Well

Don't skip this section. Things that prevented worse outcomes:

- [e.g., Monitoring caught the anomaly within 3 minutes]
- [e.g., On-call engineer had recent context on the affected system]
- [e.g., Customer communication went out within 10 minutes]

## What Went Poorly

Systemic issues — not individual failures:

- [e.g., No automated rollback was available for this deployment type]
- [e.g., Runbook for this scenario was outdated]
- [e.g., Staging environment didn't replicate the production data volume]

## Where We Got Lucky

Things that could have made this much worse:

- [e.g., This happened outside of peak compliance season — during year-end close, impact would have been 10x]
- [e.g., The affected service had a circuit breaker that prevented cascade]

## Corrective Actions

| # | Action | Type | Owner | Deadline | Priority | Status |
|---|--------|------|-------|----------|----------|--------|
| 1 | [action] | Prevent / Detect / Mitigate / Process | [name] | [date] | P1/P2/P3 | Open |
| 2 | [action] | Prevent / Detect / Mitigate / Process | [name] | [date] | P1/P2/P3 | Open |
| 3 | [action] | Prevent / Detect / Mitigate / Process | [name] | [date] | P1/P2/P3 | Open |

### Action Type Definitions
- **Prevent**: Stop this class of incident from happening at all
- **Detect**: Find it faster when it does happen
- **Mitigate**: Reduce the blast radius or duration
- **Process**: Improve the human response (runbooks, communication, escalation)

## Lessons Learned

| Lesson | Applicable Beyond This Incident? | Shared With |
|--------|----------------------------------|-------------|
| [lesson] | Yes / No | [teams] |
| [lesson] | Yes / No | [teams] |

## Domain-Specific Compliance Check

If the incident affected regulated data or compliance (see `domain-context.md` for relevant regulations):

- [ ] Audit trail integrity verified
- [ ] Data export consistency confirmed
- [ ] No unauthorized data modifications during incident window
- [ ] Multi-entity isolation confirmed (no cross-entity data leakage)
- [ ] Transaction processing verified (no duplicate/missed transactions)
- [ ] Backup and recovery point validated
- [ ] Regulatory notification required? (If yes, deadline: [date])

Read the full file on GitHub · 217 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 9d ago First seen · 217 lines · 100 tokens per session scan A 801073a14ef0

Subscribe to this mod's changes

pm-postmortem is a skill published in the GitHub repository marfoerst/the-pragmatic-pm (8 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 100 tokens to every session and 2,049 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.