Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

pre-mortem验尸前

Agent Skill

pre-mortem 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

1,505

周安装

64

GitHub Stars

103

下载量

527
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:pre-mortem(验尸前)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/pre-mortem
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill pre-mortem
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill pre-mortem

简介

pre-mortem 通过前瞻性复盘识别潜在失败原因,使用 Tiger/Paper Tiger/Elephant 模型分类风险。

  • 适用于重大发布、架构变更前的预防性分析,避免“感觉不对”却无法定位的问题。
  • 输出可落地的缓解措施与优先级排序,提升项目成功率。
  • 需团队共同参与讨论,避免个体偏见主导风险评估结论。
  • pre-mortem 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Pre-Mortem Risk Analysis Expert

Overview

A pre-mortem is a prospective hindsight exercise: imagine that your product has launched and failed, then work backward to identify why. This skill uses the Tiger / Paper Tiger / Elephant classification to categorize risks by type and urgency, ensuring launch-blocking issues are addressed before launch while avoiding wasted effort on unlikely risks.

When to Use

  • Before committing significant resources to build (post-ideation, post-validation).
  • Before a major launch, migration, or architectural change.
  • When the team has "a bad feeling" they cannot articulate.
  • When stakeholder confidence is high and you need to stress-test it.

Core Concept

The Thought Experiment

"It is 14 days after launch. The product has failed. What went wrong?"

This framing exploits a cognitive bias: people are better at explaining past events than predicting future ones. By placing the failure in the "past" (even fictitiously), participants generate more specific and honest risk assessments.

Risk Classification

Tigers (Real Risks)

Tigers are real, evidence-backed risks that could cause serious harm if not addressed.

Characteristics:

  • Supported by data, past experience, or observable trends.
  • The team can describe a plausible failure scenario in concrete terms.
  • Ignoring them would be negligent.

Examples:

  • "Our authentication service went down 3 times last month. A launch-day outage is plausible."
  • "We have zero customers in the enterprise segment. Our sales team has no enterprise relationships."
  • "The EU regulation takes effect in 60 days. We have not started compliance work."

Paper Tigers (Look Scary but Unlikely)

Paper Tigers are risks that sound alarming but, on closer inspection, are unlikely or have minimal real impact.

Characteristics:

  • Based on hypothetical scenarios without supporting evidence.
  • The probability is very low, or the impact would be manageable.
  • Often raised because of general anxiety rather than specific knowledge.

Examples:

  • "A competitor might copy our feature" -- possible, but their execution timeline is 6-12 months.
  • "The server might not handle 100x traffic" -- but our realistic projection is 5x, with auto-scaling.
  • "Users might hate the new UI" -- but usability testing with 8 users showed high satisfaction.

Elephants (Unspoken Concerns)

Elephants are the risks everyone knows about but nobody talks about. They are the "elephant in the room."

Characteristics:

  • The team avoids discussing them due to politics, hierarchy, or discomfort.
  • Often involve people, process, or organizational issues rather than technical ones.
  • Frequently the actual cause of failure when projects fail.

Examples:

  • "The tech lead does not believe in this project and has been disengaged for weeks."
  • "The CEO's pet feature is driving the roadmap, but customers have not asked for it."
  • "We do not have a plan for what happens when the contractor's contract ends next month."

Tiger Urgency Classification

Once a risk is classified as a Tiger, assign an urgency level:

UrgencyDefinitionAction Required
Launch-BlockingIf unresolved, the launch should not proceed.Concrete mitigation plan, assigned owner, decision date before launch.
Fast-FollowMust be addressed within 2 weeks after launch.Documented plan, assigned owner, scheduled for first post-launch sprint.
TrackShould be monitored and addressed if it escalates.Added to risk register, reviewed at regular cadence.

Methodology

Phase 1: Set the Scene (5 minutes)

The facilitator reads this prompt to the group:

"Imagine it is 14 days after our launch. The product has failed. Users are not adopting it, key metrics are down, and leadership is asking what went wrong. Take 10 minutes to write down every reason you can think of for why we failed. Be specific. Be honest. Nothing is off limits."

Ground rules:

  • Anonymous contributions (sticky notes or digital equivalent).
  • No attribution, no blame, no judgment.
  • Quantity over quality in the first round.

Phase 2: Generate Risks (10 minutes)

Each participant independently writes down failure scenarios. One risk per sticky note. Aim for 5-10 per person.

Prompts to stimulate thinking:

  • What technical system is most likely to break?
  • What customer objection have we not addressed?
  • What team dynamic could derail us?
  • What external event could change our assumptions?
  • What are we pretending is not a problem?
  • What decision are we avoiding?

Phase 3: Share and Cluster (15 minutes)

  1. Read each risk aloud (without attribution).
  2. Place on the board.
  3. Group similar risks together.
  4. Merge duplicates.

Phase 4: Classify (15 minutes)

For each cluster, the group decides:

ClassificationCriteria
TigerSupported by evidence. Plausible failure scenario.
Paper TigerSounds scary but unlikely or low-impact on inspection.
ElephantThe room got quiet when this was read. People exchanged glances.

For each Tiger, assign urgency: Launch-Blocking, Fast-Follow, or Track.

Phase 5: Mitigation Plans (15 minutes)

For each Launch-Blocking Tiger, complete:

FieldDescription
RiskClear description of the risk
EvidenceWhat data or experience supports this being a real risk?
MitigationSpecific, concrete action to reduce the risk
OwnerSingle person accountable
Decision DateDate by which the mitigation must be complete or the launch decision revisited

Phase 6: Address Elephants (10 minutes)

Elephants require a different approach than Tigers:

  1. Acknowledge -- Name the elephant explicitly. "The team is concerned that..."
  2. Assess -- Is this actually a Tiger in disguise? If so, reclassify.
  3. Decide -- Either address it (assign an owner) or consciously accept it (document the acceptance and rationale).

Python Tool: risk_categorizer.py

Categorize and analyze risks using the CLI tool:

# Run with demo data
python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py --demo

# Run with custom input
python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py input.json

# Output as JSON
python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py input.json --format json

Input Format

{
  "risks": [
    {
      "description": "Authentication service has had 3 outages in the last month",
      "category": "tiger",
      "evidence": "Incident reports from last 30 days",
      "urgency": "launch_blocking"
    }
  ]
}

Output

Risk distribution summary, action plans for launch-blocking tigers, and flags for elephants that may need investigation.

See scripts/risk_categorizer.py for full documentation.

Output Format

Pre-Mortem Summary

Pre-Mortem Analysis: [Product/Feature Name]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Participants: [list]
Total risks identified: N
  - Tigers: X (Launch-Blocking: A, Fast-Follow: B, Track: C)
  - Paper Tigers: Y
  - Elephants: Z

Risk Registry

#RiskCategoryUrgencyEvidenceMitigationOwnerDecision Date
1...TigerLaunch-Blocking............
2...TigerFast-Follow............
3...Paper Tiger--...------
4...ElephantTBD............

Use assets/pre_mortem_template.md for the full document template.

Integration with Other Discovery Skills

  • Use after brainstorm-ideas/ and brainstorm-experiments/ -- pre-mortem is the final check before committing to build.
  • Feed launch-blocking Tiger mitigations back into identify-assumptions/ if they surface new assumptions.
  • Elephants often reveal assumptions that the team has been avoiding.

Troubleshooting

SymptomLikely CauseResolution
Team generates mostly paper tigersRisk aversion or surface-level thinking; team not fully immersing in the failure scenarioRe-read the thought experiment prompt slowly; extend silent writing time from 10 to 15 minutes; use specific prompts
No elephants surfacedPsychological safety too low, or facilitator is a manager creating power dynamicsUse anonymous contribution (sticky notes or digital tools); consider an external facilitator; separate session from performance reviews
All risks classified as tigersTeam lacks calibration on what constitutes real evidence vs. anxietyRequire concrete evidence for each tiger; if evidence is hypothetical, reclassify as paper tiger
Elephant escalation check flags too many false positivesESCALATION_KEYWORDS list is broad, matching common words in non-critical contextsReview matched keywords in output; refine escalation thresholds; use the recommendation as a prompt, not a verdict
Launch-blocking tigers have no owners assignedPre-mortem session ended without Phase 5 mitigation planningAlways reserve 15 minutes for mitigation plans; do not skip Phase 5 even if the session runs long
Validation errors on input JSONMissing required fields (description, evidence, category) or invalid urgency for tigersCheck that every tiger has urgency set to one of: launch_blocking, fast_follow, track

Success Criteria

  • Pre-mortem conducted before every major launch, migration, or significant resource commitment
  • At least 5-10 risks generated per person during the silent writing phase
  • Risk distribution includes all three categories (not all tigers, not all paper tigers)
  • Every launch-blocking tiger has an assigned owner, concrete mitigation plan, and decision date
  • Elephants are explicitly named and either addressed or consciously accepted with documented rationale
  • Pre-mortem findings are reviewed against actual outcomes post-launch to calibrate future sessions
  • Session duration stays within 60-90 minutes total across all 6 phases

Scope & Limitations

In Scope:

  • Prospective hindsight exercises using the "14 days after launch failure" framing
  • Tiger / Paper Tiger / Elephant risk classification with urgency levels
  • Automated elephant escalation detection based on keyword signals
  • Risk registry generation with category distribution and action plans
  • Facilitation methodology for both in-person and remote teams

Out of Scope:

  • Ongoing risk management and tracking (see senior-pm/risk_matrix_analyzer.py)
  • Quantitative risk analysis with probability/impact scoring (see senior-pm/ skill)
  • Product discovery and hypothesis validation (see brainstorm-experiments/)
  • Technical architecture risk assessment (see engineering/ skills)

Important Caveats:

  • Pre-mortems are most effective with 4-8 participants. Fewer than 4 limits perspective diversity; more than 10 makes classification unwieldy.
  • The elephant escalation keyword check is a heuristic. It catches common patterns but cannot detect all political or organizational risks.
  • Pre-mortems complement, not replace, assumption mapping. Use identify-assumptions/ for systematic risk categorization and pre-mortem/ for surfacing unspoken concerns.
  • Psychological safety is a prerequisite. If the team cannot speak honestly, the pre-mortem will produce sanitized results.

Integration Points

IntegrationDirectionDescription
brainstorm-ideas/Receives fromIdeas that passed initial validation are subject to pre-mortem before full build
brainstorm-experiments/Receives fromPost-experiment, pre-mortem stress-tests the build decision
identify-assumptions/BidirectionalLaunch-blocking tigers may surface new assumptions; elephants often reveal avoided assumptions
execution/create-prd/Feeds intoTiger mitigations become PRD risk sections and assumption validation plans
senior-pm/Feeds intoLaunch-blocking tigers escalate into portfolio risk registers via risk_matrix_analyzer.py
scrum-master/Feeds intoFast-follow tigers become sprint backlog items with mitigation-focused stories

Tool Reference

risk_categorizer.py

Categorizes pre-mortem risks as Tigers, Paper Tigers, or Elephants. Generates action plans for launch-blocking tigers and flags elephants with escalation signals.

FlagTypeDefaultDescription
input_filepositional(optional)Path to JSON file with risks array
--demoflagoffRun with built-in sample data (7 risks across all categories)
--formatchoicetextOutput format: text or json

Input fields per risk:

  • description (required): Clear description of the risk scenario
  • category (required): One of tiger, paper_tiger, elephant
  • evidence (required): Supporting data or observations
  • urgency (required for tigers): One of launch_blocking, fast_follow, track

References

  • Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Pre-Mortem," *Harvard Business Review* (2007)
  • Daniel Kahneman, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* (2011) -- prospective hindsight
  • Chip Heath & Dan Heath, *Decisive* (2013) -- decision-making under uncertainty
  • Amy Edmondson, *The Fearless Organization* (2018) -- psychological safety for surfacing elephants

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

34.94%
按下载量换算184

Claude

31.97%
按下载量换算168

Cursor

18.53%
按下载量换算98

Gemini CLI

10.8%
按下载量换算57

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills