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

conduct-post-mortem进行尸检

Agent Skill

conduct-post-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

346

周安装

14

GitHub Stars

12

下载量

109
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:conduct-post-mortem(进行尸检)
来源仓库:https://github.com/pjt222/development-guides
仓库路径:skills/conduct-post-mortem
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/pjt222/development-guides --skill conduct-post-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/pjt222/development-guides --skill conduct-post-mortem

简介

领导无责难性质的事件复盘会议,提升系统韧性。

  • 收集日志、指标和通信记录等原始数据进行分析。
  • 生成具体改进措施和负责人分配的行动清单。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围和维护状态,注意是否涉及联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。
  • conduct-post-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

Conduct Post-Mortem

Lead a blameless post-mortem to learn from incidents and improve system resilience.

When to Use

  • After any production incident or service degradation
  • Following a near-miss or close call
  • When investigating recurring issues
  • To share learnings across teams

Inputs

  • Required: Incident details (start/end time, services affected, severity)
  • Required: Access to logs, metrics, and alerts during the incident window
  • Optional: Runbook used during incident response
  • Optional: Communication logs (Slack, PagerDuty)

Procedure

Step 1: Collect Raw Data

Gather all artifacts from the incident:

# Export relevant logs (adjust timerange)
kubectl logs deployment/api-service \
  --since-time="2025-02-09T10:00:00Z" \
  --until-time="2025-02-09T11:30:00Z" > incident-logs.txt

# Export Prometheus metrics snapshot
curl -G 'http://prometheus:9090/api/v1/query_range' \
  --data-urlencode 'query=rate(http_requests_total{job="api"}[5m])' \
  --data-urlencode 'start=2025-02-09T10:00:00Z' \
  --data-urlencode 'end=2025-02-09T11:30:00Z' \
  --data-urlencode 'step=15s' > metrics.json

# Export alert history
amtool alert query --within=2h alertname="HighErrorRate" --output json > alerts.json

Expected: Logs, metrics, and alerts covering the full incident timeline.

On failure: If data is incomplete, note gaps in the report. Set up longer retention for next time.

Step 2: Build the Timeline

Create a chronological reconstruction:

## Timeline (all times UTC)

| Time     | Event | Source | Actor |
|----------|-------|--------|-------|
| 10:05:23 | First 5xx errors appear | nginx access logs | - |
| 10:06:45 | High error rate alert fires | Prometheus | - |
| 10:08:12 | On-call engineer paged | PagerDuty | System |
| 10:12:00 | Engineer acknowledges alert | PagerDuty | @alice |
| 10:15:30 | Database connection pool exhausted | app logs | - |
| 10:18:45 | Database queries identified as slow | pganalyze | @alice |
| 10:22:10 | Cache layer deployed as mitigation | kubectl | @alice |
| 10:35:00 | Error rate returns to normal | Prometheus | - |
| 10:40:00 | Incident marked resolved | PagerDuty | @alice |

Expected: A clear, minute-by-minute sequence showing what happened and when.

On failure: Timestamp mismatches. Ensure all systems use NTP and log in UTC.

Step 3: Identify Contributing Factors

Use the Five Whys or fishbone analysis:

## Contributing Factors

### Immediate Cause
- Database connection pool exhausted (max 20 connections)
- Query introduced in v2.3.0 deployment lacked index

### Contributing Factors
1. **Monitoring Gap**: Connection pool utilization not monitored
2. **Testing Gap**: Load testing didn't include new query pattern
3. **Runbook Gap**: No documented procedure for DB connection issues
4. **Capacity Planning**: Pool size unchanged despite 3x traffic growth

### Systemic Issues
- No pre-deployment query plan review
- Database alerts only fire on total failure, not degradation

Expected: Multiple layers of causation identified, avoiding blame.

On failure: If analysis stops at "engineer made a mistake", dig deeper. What allowed that mistake?

Step 4: Generate Action Items

Create concrete, trackable improvements:

## Action Items

| ID | Action | Owner | Deadline | Priority |
|----|--------|-------|----------|----------|
| AI-001 | Add connection pool metrics to Grafana | @bob | 2025-02-16 | High |
| AI-002 | Create runbook: DB connection saturation | @alice | 2025-02-20 | High |
| AI-003 | Add DB query plan check to CI/CD | @charlie | 2025-03-01 | Medium |
| AI-004 | Review and adjust connection pool size | @dan | 2025-02-14 | High |
| AI-005 | Implement DB slow query alerts (<100ms) | @bob | 2025-02-23 | Medium |
| AI-006 | Add load testing for new query patterns | @charlie | 2025-03-15 | Low |

Expected: Each action has an owner, deadline, and clear deliverable.

On failure: Vague actions like "improve testing" won't get done. Make specific.

Step 5: Write and Distribute Report

Use this template structure:

# Post-Mortem: API Service Degradation (2025-02-09)

**Date**: 2025-02-09
**Duration**: 1h 35min (10:05 - 11:40 UTC)
**Severity**: P1 (Critical service degraded)
**Authors**: @alice, @bob
**Reviewed**: 2025-02-10

## Summary
The API service experienced elevated error rates (40% of requests) due to
database connection pool exhaustion. Service was restored by deploying a
cache layer. No data loss occurred.

## Impact
- 40,000 failed requests over 1.5 hours
- 2,000 customers affected
- Revenue impact: ~$5,000 (estimated)

## Root Cause
Query introduced in v2.3.0 deployment performed a full table scan due to
missing index. Under increased load, this saturated the connection pool.

[... timeline, contributing factors, action items as above ...]

## What Went Well
- Alert fired within 90 seconds of first errors
- Mitigation deployed quickly (10 minutes from page to fix)
- Communication to customers was clear and timely

## Lessons Learned
- Database monitoring is insufficient; need connection-level metrics
- Load testing must cover new query patterns, not just volume
- Connection pool sizing hasn't kept pace with traffic growth

## Prevention
See Action Items above.

Expected: Report shared with team and stakeholders within 48 hours of incident.

On failure: If report delays exceed 1 week, insights grow stale. Prioritize post-mortems.

Step 6: Review Action Items in Standup/Retros

Track action item progress:

# Create GitHub issues from action items
gh issue create --title "AI-001: Add connection pool metrics" \
  --body "From post-mortem PM-2025-02-09. Owner: @bob. Deadline: 2025-02-16" \
  --label "post-mortem,observability" \
  --assignee bob

# Set up recurring reminder
# Add to team calendar: Weekly review of open post-mortem items

Expected: Action items tracked in project management tool, reviewed weekly.

On failure: If action items languish, incidents will recur. Assign executive sponsor for high-priority items.

Validation

  • Timeline is complete and chronologically accurate
  • Multiple contributing factors identified (not just one)
  • Action items have owners, deadlines, and priorities
  • Report uses blameless language (no "X caused the issue")
  • Report distributed to all stakeholders within 48 hours
  • Action items tracked in ticketing system
  • Follow-up review scheduled for 4 weeks out

Common Pitfalls

  • Blame culture: Using "who" language instead of "what/why". Focus on systems, not people.
  • Shallow analysis: Stopping at the first cause. Always ask "why" at least 5 times.
  • Vague action items: "Improve monitoring" is not actionable. "Add metric X to dashboard Y by date Z" is.
  • No follow-through: Action items created but never reviewed. Set calendar reminders.
  • Fear of transparency: Hiding incidents reduces learning. Share widely (within appropriate security boundaries).

Related Skills

  • write-incident-runbook - create runbooks referenced during incidents
  • configure-alerting-rules - improve alerts based on post-mortem findings

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

33.01%
按下载量换算36

Claude

31.13%
按下载量换算34

Cursor

19.99%
按下载量换算22

Gemini CLI

8.62%
按下载量换算9

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

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