Install
$ agentstack add skill-njoyimpeguy-augments-post-mortem ✓ scanned · ✓ verified — works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
About
Post-Mortem
debugging finds why the code broke. This finds why the break escaped — which gate should have caught it and didn't — and converts that into a change that makes the whole class impossible next time. The deliverable is not a fix; it is a stronger gate.
Be honest about what this is: a structured reasoning pass, not a deterministic gate itself. Its value lives entirely in the gates it produces — a test, a check, an assertion — not in the reflection. A post-mortem that ends in resolutions instead of gates changed nothing.
When to use
- A failure reached production, or a defect surfaced far downstream of where it was introduced.
- A unit of work went badly enough to be worth learning from (a retrospective).
- Skip for a bug you simply reproduce and fix — that is
debugging. This skill starts after the cause is known and asks why it got past everyone.
Procedure
- Reconstruct the timeline from artifacts, not memory. Walk the commits, CI runs, logs, and review history: when was the defect introduced, when did each check run, when was it noticed? Memory rewrites history into a tidy story; the artifacts don't.
- Find the cause of the escape, not the bug. The code cause is
debugging's job. Here, list every gate the change passed through — spec, review, tests, CI, release — and for each ask: was it missing, present but too weak, or skipped? The escape is wherever a gate should have stood and didn't.
- Drive each finding to a structural cause. Keep asking "and why did that get through?" until the answer is structural — a test class that doesn't exist, an unstated assumption, a check nothing runs — not a person. "The reviewer missed it" is a symptom; "nothing tests this path" is the cause. Look across code, tests, tooling/CI, and process.
- One action per root cause — prefer a gate over a promise. The strongest action is deterministic: a regression test, a CI check, a lint rule, a runtime assertion — something that makes recurrence impossible, not "be more careful". A promise to try harder is the weakest action; rank it last, and only when nothing can be automated.
- Self-challenge each action. Ask: would this actually have caught this failure? If not, it is theater — cut it or replace it. Action items that wouldn't have stopped the incident are the main way a post-mortem fails.
Common mistakes
- Stopping at "human error" or "reviewer missed it" — a symptom, not a cause. Ask why the process allowed the error.
- Action items that are promises ("review more carefully") instead of gates (a check that fails on the bad input).
- Reconstructing the timeline from memory — it launders the real sequence into a story where the outcome looks inevitable or excusable.
- Blame. The question is always which gate was missing, never who is at fault.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: NjoyimPeguy
- Source: NjoyimPeguy/augments
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet — be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.