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 mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC --skill postmortem-writinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLICWrote 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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/postmortem-writing)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/postmortem-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/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/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/postmortem-writing"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mattmre/evokore-mcp-public/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 | $0.00042 | $0.02865 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00021 | $0.01432 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00573 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00286 |
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 8d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to postmortem-writing — 94 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 399 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Postmortem Writing
Comprehensive guide to writing effective, blameless postmortems that drive organizational learning and prevent incident recurrence.
When to Use This Skill
- Conducting post-incident reviews
- Writing postmortem documents
- Facilitating blameless postmortem meetings
- Identifying root causes and contributing factors
- Creating actionable follow-up items
- Building organizational learning culture
Core Concepts
1. Blameless Culture
| Blame-Focused | Blameless |
|---|---|
| "Who caused this?" | "What conditions allowed this?" |
| "Someone made a mistake" | "The system allowed this mistake" |
| Punish individuals | Improve systems |
| Hide information | Share learnings |
| Fear of speaking up | Psychological safety |
2. Postmortem Triggers
- SEV1 or SEV2 incidents
- Customer-facing outages > 15 minutes
- Data loss or security incidents
- Near-misses that could have been severe
- Novel failure modes
- Incidents requiring unusual intervention
Quick Start
Postmortem Timeline
Day 0: Incident occurs
Day 1-2: Draft postmortem document
Day 3-5: Postmortem meeting
Day 5-7: Finalize document, create tickets
Week 2+: Action item completion
Quarterly: Review patterns across incidents
Templates
Template 1: Standard Postmortem
# Postmortem: [Incident Title]
**Date**: 2024-01-15
**Authors**: @alice, @bob
**Status**: Draft | In Review | Final
**Incident Severity**: SEV2
**Incident Duration**: 47 minutes
## Executive Summary
On January 15, 2024, the payment processing service experienced a 47-minute outage affecting approximately 12,000 customers. The root cause was a database connection pool exhaustion triggered by a configuration change in deployment v2.3.4. The incident was resolved by rolling back to v2.3.3 and increasing connection pool limits.
**Impact**:
- 12,000 customers unable to complete purchases
- Estimated revenue loss: $45,000
- 847 support tickets created
- No data loss or security implications
## Timeline (All times UTC)
| Time | Event |
| ----- | ----------------------------------------------- |
| 14:23 | Deployment v2.3.4 completed to production |
| 14:31 | First alert: `payment_error_rate > 5%` |
| 14:33 | On-call engineer @alice acknowledges alert |
| 14:35 | Initial investigation begins, error rate at 23% |
| 14:41 | Incident declared SEV2, @bob joins |
| 14:45 | Database connection exhaustion identified |
| 14:52 | Decision to rollback deployment |
| 14:58 | Rollback to v2.3.3 initiated |
| 15:10 | Rollback complete, error rate dropping |
| 15:18 | Service fully recovered, incident resolved |
## Root Cause Analysis
### What Happened
The v2.3.4 deployment included a change to the database query pattern that inadvertently removed connection pooling for a frequently-called endpoint. Each request opened a new database connection instead of reusing pooled connections.
### Why It Happened
1. **Proximate Cause**: Code change in `PaymentRepository.java` replaced pooled `DataSource` with direct `DriverManager.getConnection()` calls.
2. **Contributing Factors**:
- Code review did not catch the connection handling change
- No integration tests specifically for connection pool behavior
- Staging environment has lower traffic, masking the issue
- Database connection metrics alert threshold was too high (90%)
3. **5 Whys Analysis**:
- Why did the service fail? → Database connections exhausted
- Why were connections exhausted? → Each request opened new connection
- Why did each request open new connection? → Code bypassed connection pool
- Why did code bypass connection pool? → Developer unfamiliar with codebase patterns
- Why was developer unfamiliar? → No documentation on connection management patterns
### System Diagram
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 399 lines · 42 tokens per session scan A 7598fb681c52
postmortem-writing is a skill published in the GitHub repository mattmre/EVOKORE-MCP-PUBLIC (3 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 42 tokens to every session and 2,865 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to postmortem-writing, differing in 94 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
starting-a-new-project
Use when the workspace is empty — no code yet — and the user brings a raw idea: the brand-new branch of setting-up-a-project, normally reached via that dispatcher, directly only when the situation is unmistakable. Not for features in an existing project — use brainstorming instead.
team-workflow
Design the team's operating rhythm — task management, collaboration rituals, and tooling. Use when the day-to-day cadence needs structure. For a time-boxed sprint, use design-sprint-plan.
bug-hunter
Use this skill when scanning source code for bugs, anti-patterns, code smells, or quality issues in a WrongStack project. Trigger on the explicit vocabulary — "bug", "bug hunt", "scan for issues", "find problems", "anti-pattern", "code smell", "static analysis" — and on the task shape, which is how it usually arrives…
observability
Use this skill when instrumenting logs, traces, or metrics in WrongStack, or when setting up observability for a new feature. Triggers: user says "log", "trace", "metrics", "observability", "instrument", "structured logging", "opentelemetry", "log level", "debug", "monitoring".
github-fix-issue
Analyze and fix GitHub issues in the current repository, including issue research, scoped implementation, and testing. Use when the user asks to fix, investigate, or work on a GitHub issue by number or URL. Create branches, commits, pushes, or pull requests only when the user explicitly requests those delivery actions.
postmortem
Deliver a structured post-mortem after incidents, mistakes, or stuck sessions. Use when the user requests a structured post-mortem after incidents, mistakes, or stuck sessions.