incident-postmortem-template
Incident Postmortem Template - Auto-activating skill for Technical Documentation. Triggers on: incident postmortem template, incident postmortem template Part of the Technical Documentation skill category.
36
3%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
100%
1.02xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./planned-skills/generated/17-technical-docs/incident-postmortem-template/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
7%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description is extremely thin—it essentially just restates the skill name without describing what the skill does or providing meaningful trigger guidance. It lacks concrete actions, natural keyword variations, and an explicit 'Use when...' clause. The only slight positive is that 'incident postmortem' is a reasonably distinct domain term.
Suggestions
Add concrete actions describing what the skill does, e.g., 'Generates structured incident postmortem documents including timeline, root cause analysis, impact assessment, and action items.'
Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger variations, e.g., 'Use when the user asks for a postmortem, post-incident review, outage report, RCA template, or incident retrospective.'
Remove the duplicate trigger term and expand with synonyms users would naturally use, such as 'incident report', 'root cause analysis', 'outage review', 'blameless postmortem'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names a domain ('incident postmortem template') but does not describe any concrete actions. There are no verbs indicating what the skill actually does—no 'generates', 'creates', 'fills out', etc. | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The description barely addresses 'what' (it's about an incident postmortem template, but no actions are specified) and the 'when' is essentially just restating the skill name as a trigger rather than providing meaningful guidance on when Claude should select this skill. | 1 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | The trigger terms listed are just 'incident postmortem template' repeated twice. There are no natural variations a user might say, such as 'post-incident review', 'outage report', 'RCA template', 'root cause analysis', or 'incident report'. | 1 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The phrase 'incident postmortem template' is fairly specific to a niche domain, which reduces conflict risk somewhat. However, the lack of concrete actions and the overlap with a broad 'Technical Documentation' category could cause confusion with other documentation skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 5 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
0%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is essentially a placeholder with no substantive content. It repeatedly describes itself in abstract terms without providing any actual incident postmortem template, structure, fields, examples, or actionable guidance. It fails on every dimension because it contains no real instructional content whatsoever.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract meta-descriptions with an actual incident postmortem template including concrete sections (e.g., Incident Summary, Timeline, Root Cause, Impact, Action Items) with example content for each.
Add a clear workflow for conducting a postmortem: e.g., 1. Gather timeline data, 2. Identify root cause, 3. Document impact metrics, 4. Define action items with owners and deadlines, 5. Review and publish.
Include a copy-paste-ready markdown template that Claude can immediately populate when a user requests a postmortem document.
Remove all self-referential filler sections ('When to Use', 'Example Triggers', 'Capabilities') and replace with actionable content that teaches how to create high-quality postmortems.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is almost entirely filler and meta-description. It explains what the skill does in abstract terms without providing any actual incident postmortem template content, structure, or guidance. Every section restates the same vague idea. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | There is zero concrete, executable guidance. No template structure, no example postmortem sections, no commands, no code, no specific fields or formats. It only describes what it could do rather than actually doing anything. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | No workflow is defined. There are no steps, no sequence, no validation checkpoints. The skill claims to provide 'step-by-step guidance' but includes none. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is a monolithic block of vague descriptions with no references to supporting files, no structured navigation, and no meaningful organization of content across sections. | 1 / 3 |
Total | 4 / 12 Passed |
Validation
81%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 9 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
allowed_tools_field | 'allowed-tools' contains unusual tool name(s) | Warning |
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 9 / 11 Passed | |
- Commit
3a2d27d
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.