Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to parcadei/ContinuousClaudeV4.7. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/parcadei/ContinuousClaudeV4.7/main/.claude/skills/premortem/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/parcadei/ContinuousClaudeV4.7Wrote 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/parcadei/continuousclaudev4.7/premortem)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/parcadei/continuousclaudev4.7/premortem"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/parcadei/continuousclaudev4.7/premortem.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00022 | $0.00626 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00313 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00004 | $0.00125 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00063 |
Grade A, and why
premortem 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.
What it actually says
Failure-state projection before implementation. Combines Shreyas risk taxonomy with first-principles retrospective reasoning. Runs after plan/spec, before work begins.
Risk categories: Tiger (clear threat requiring mitigation), Paper Tiger (appears threatening but manageable), Elephant (avoided topic with systemic impact).
Read target plan/spec files. Project forward to completion, then reason backward from imagined failure states. For each failure vector, trace backwards through these lenses:
Base assumptions that led astray. What foundational beliefs about users, tech, or timeline proved wrong? Cross-reference with project goals for contradiction points.
Shortcuts taken. Where did expediency override quality? Which "temporary" solutions became permanent? Map to technical debt accumulation.
Weak implementations. What components got minimal attention or testing? Single points of failure, untested edge cases.
Missing evaluations. What tests, metrics, or validations were skipped? How would we have caught deviation earlier?
Necessity conditions. What must remain true for task success? Environmental dependencies, resource availability, stakeholder alignment.
Nth-order effects. Secondary and tertiary consequences of primary decisions. Cascading failures, emergent behaviors, unintended interactions.
For each identified failure mode: falsifiable check (how to verify this risk is real vs imagined), root cause (distinguish proximate trigger from underlying system issue), cognitive bias scan (overconfidence, planning fallacy, confirmation bias, availability heuristic), then classify as tiger/paper tiger/elephant.
Risk output format:
premortem:
status: BLOCK|WARN|PASS
tigers:
- risk: "assumption X fails when Y"
evidence: "file:line or observable condition"
root_cause: "fundamental issue behind symptom"
bias: "cognitive bias driving the assumption"
falsifiable_test: "specific way to verify or disprove"
mitigation: "required action before proceeding"
paper_tigers:
- risk: "appears threatening but bounded"
why_manageable: "specific constraints limiting damage"
elephants:
- risk: "avoided systemic issue"
why_avoided: "reasons for non-discussion"
true_impact: "actual consequences if unaddressed"
Decision gate: Tigers present with no mitigation path — BLOCK, require mitigation before implementation. Only paper tigers and elephants — WARN, proceed with documented awareness. No significant risks — PASS.
Use AskUserQuestion only for tiger-level risks requiring implementation hold: "BLOCKED: {risk summary}. Options: add mitigation, accept with justification, need research."
Every risk must specify concrete evidence and a falsifiable test. If you cannot state what would disprove the risk, it is not a verified finding — demote to paper tiger or discard.
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 First seen · 54 lines · 22 tokens per session scan A 5b56e7e2fd9c
premortem is a skill published in the GitHub repository parcadei/ContinuousClaudeV4.7 (48 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 22 tokens to every session and 626 once invoked, about $0.0001 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
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
local-ai-agents
Build local-first AI agents that run entirely on a developer workstation with Microsoft Foundry Local and Qwen function-calling models. Covers Small Language Models (SLMs), the OpenAI-compatible local endpoint, sandboxed local tools, local RAG with Chroma, local MCP servers, hybrid cloud/local routing, and the…
next-cache-components-adoption
Turn on Cache Components in a Next.js app and resolve the blocking routes it surfaces. Use when the user wants to enable, adopt, or migrate to Cache Components, flip the cacheComponents flag, work through a flood of blocking-prerender / instant validation errors, run the cache-components-instant-false codemod, or…
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…
insight-error-page
Write or audit an insight-kind error page for the Next.js dev overlay. Use when creating a new errors/ .mdx page, auditing an existing one, or checking that a page matches the framework fix cards. Covers page structure, title alignment, FixCard cards with Copy prompt button, code snippets, terminology verification…