Source profileQuality 92/100

event4u-app/agent-config/src/skills/premortem/SKILL.md

premortem

Use before committing to a heavy or irreversible plan — imagine it's 6 months later and this failed; enumerate why, score each mode, derive early-warning signals and preventive guardrails.

Source repository stars
9
Declared platforms
0
Static risk flags
0
Last source update
2026-08-28
Source checked
2026-08-28

Decision brief

What it does: where it fits

Forward-looking imagined-failure analysis. Sibling of blameless-post-mortem (which analyses what actually went wrong after the fact) and risk-officer (which scores pre-commit risks per likelihood × impact). This skill adds the prospective frame: "Assume total failure at horizon…

Best for

  • Heavy to execute (multi-sprint, multi-team, or high coordination cost), or
  • Irreversible or costly to reverse (schema migration, public API change,
  • The failure is already evidenced — root cause is known → use

Not for

  • Tasks that require unconfirmed production actions or broad system permissions.
  • Environments where the pinned source and install steps cannot be inspected.

Compatibility matrix

Platform support, with evidence labels

PlatformStatusEvidenceWhat to check
CodexNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Claude CodeNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
CursorNot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Gemini CLINot declaredNo explicit evidencePortability before use
Open the compatibility checker

Installation

Inspect first. Install second.

The source command is displayed only when detected. A safe inspection prompt is always available so your agent can explain every action before execution.

Source-detected install commandSource
npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/premortem"
Safe inspection promptEditorial

Inspect the Agent Skill "premortem" from https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config/blob/6a5670b7881a676c0da90d2afb950298087c4ccb/src/skills/premortem/SKILL.md at commit 6a5670b7881a676c0da90d2afb950298087c4ccb. List every install step, command, network request, credential, file read/write, external action, and rollback step. Explain whether it fits my task. Do not install or execute anything until I approve.

Workflow

What the source asks the agent to do

  1. 01

    Procedure

    Summarise the plan in one sentence: "We are doing X for outcome Y, touching Z." Set the prospective-failure frame explicitly: "Assume total failure at horizon H (e.g. 6 months post-launch). What went wrong?"

    Invoke adversarial-review to attack theInvoke risk-officer to assign L × I (likelihoodEarly-warning signal — what would you observe first if this failure
  2. 02

    When to use

    Before committing to a plan that is:

    Heavy to execute (multi-sprint, multi-team, or high coordination cost), orIrreversible or costly to reverse (schema migration, public API change,The failure is already evidenced — root cause is known → use
  3. 03

    1. State the plan and set the horizon

    Summarise the plan in one sentence: "We are doing X for outcome Y, touching Z." Set the prospective-failure frame explicitly: "Assume total failure at horizon H (e.g. 6 months post-launch). What went wrong?"

    Summarise the plan in one sentence: "We are doing X for outcome Y, touching Z." Set the prospective-failure frame explicitly: "Assume total failure at horizon H (e.g. 6 months post-launch). What went wrong?"If the plan cannot be summarised in one sentence, it is not reviewable — stop and ask for scope clarification.
  4. 04

    2. Enumerate failure stories

    Generate failure scenarios across multiple angles (people, process, technical, external, timing). Each scenario is a short narrative in past tense: "We shipped, but adoption collapsed because …"

    Invoke adversarial-review to attack theInvoke risk-officer to assign L × I (likelihoodGenerate failure scenarios across multiple angles (people, process, technical, external, timing). Each scenario is a short narrative in past tense: "We shipped, but adoption collapsed because …"
  5. 05

    3. Derive early-warning signals and preventive guardrails

    For each top failure mode (sorted by L × I from risk-officer):

    Early-warning signal — what would you observe first if this failurePreventive guardrail — one specific change to the plan, process, orFor each top failure mode (sorted by L × I from risk-officer):

Permission review

Static risk signals and limitations

No configured static risk pattern was detected

This is not proof of safety. Runtime behavior, indirect dependencies, and hidden external systems are outside the static scan.

Evidence record

Why each signal appears

EvidenceSourceComputedTestedEditorial
SignalValueEvidence typeMeaning
Quality score92/100ComputedDocumentation, specificity, maintenance, and trust rules
Repository stars9SourceRepository attention, not individual Skill quality
Compatibility0 platformsSourceDeclared in the catalog source record
Usage guideautomated source guideEditorialGenerated or reviewed according to the visible evidence level

Pinned source

Provenance and original SKILL.md

Repository
event4u-app/agent-config
Skill path
src/skills/premortem/SKILL.md
Commit
6a5670b7881a676c0da90d2afb950298087c4ccb
License
MIT
Collected
2026-08-28
Default branch
main
View the original SKILL.md

premortem

Forward-looking imagined-failure analysis. Sibling of blameless-post-mortem (which analyses what actually went wrong after the fact) and risk-officer (which scores pre-commit risks per likelihood × impact). This skill adds the prospective frame: "Assume total failure at horizon H — reconstruct why."

When to use

Before committing to a plan that is:

  • Heavy to execute (multi-sprint, multi-team, or high coordination cost), or
  • Irreversible or costly to reverse (schema migration, public API change, infrastructure restructure, major dependency swap, architecture decision).

Trigger phrasing: "premortem this", "what if this fails?", "imagine it's 6 months later and this shipped badly", "help me stress-test this plan".

Do NOT use when:

  • The failure is already evidenced — root cause is known → use systematic-debugging.
  • Analysing something that already failed in the past → use blameless-post-mortem.
  • The plan is trivial or fully reversible — overhead exceeds value.

Procedure

1. State the plan and set the horizon

Summarise the plan in one sentence: "We are doing X for outcome Y, touching Z." Set the prospective-failure frame explicitly: "Assume total failure at horizon H (e.g. 6 months post-launch). What went wrong?"

If the plan cannot be summarised in one sentence, it is not reviewable — stop and ask for scope clarification.

2. Enumerate failure stories

Generate failure scenarios across multiple angles (people, process, technical, external, timing). Each scenario is a short narrative in past tense: "We shipped, but adoption collapsed because …"

For each scenario:

  • Invoke adversarial-review to attack the plan's assumptions and surface hidden coupling or over-engineering.
  • Invoke risk-officer to assign L × I (likelihood × impact) scores to each failure mode.

Do NOT re-implement L × I scoring inline — delegate to risk-officer.

3. Derive early-warning signals and preventive guardrails

For each top failure mode (sorted by L × I from risk-officer):

  1. Early-warning signal — what would you observe first if this failure mode were activating? Name a concrete, observable indicator (metric, alert, user behaviour, team signal). This is the load-bearing output.
  2. Preventive guardrail — one specific change to the plan, process, or rollout strategy that reduces the likelihood of this failure mode. Keep it executable; flag as accept if no practical guardrail exists.

3b. Compress into the four-part failure register

When the pre-mortem accompanies a plan artefact (a roadmap, an ADR, a design doc), compress the analysis into the four-part failure register — the fixed, comparable shape the roadmap template's optional ## Pre-mortem section consumes:

  1. Three most probable causes of death, ranked — one paragraph each, naming the concrete mechanism by which the plan most plausibly dies. Mechanisms, not topics: "the gate's two inputs are unmeasurable from this corpus" is a cause; "measurement risk" is not.
  2. One untested hidden dependency — the assumption the plan relies on but never tests.
  3. One modification that makes failure survivable — a concrete plan change that converts a fatal outcome into a recoverable one.
  4. One tripwire metric with a horizon — a measurable signal plus a threshold and deadline that says early that cause #1 is materializing.

The register was validated blind against this repo's own closed nulls (3 of 4 registers named the actual failure cause at rank 1 — agents/evidence/analysis/premortem-blind-retro-validation.md). The hits were all failures of measurability; the miss was a mechanism that worked but added nothing — weight the register toward "can this experiment answer its question" and state redundancy risks explicitly.

4. Optional memory write-back

If the analysis surfaces a pattern worth preserving for future decisions:

  1. Run a dedup pre-check: call retrieve() over the same key-space (plan type, affected paths, decision area). If a match is found, propose a frequency/supersedes update to the existing entry rather than a new one.
  2. Draft a historical-patterns candidate and send it to /memory propose per docs/contracts/analysis-memory-loop.md.
  3. Never auto-promote. Human action drives /memory promote.

Output format

  1. Ranked prospective failure modes — L × I ordered list (from risk-officer)
  2. Early-warning signal per failure mode — concrete, observable indicator
  3. Preventive guardrails — one per failure mode (or accept with rationale)
  4. Four-part failure register (when accompanying a plan artefact) — three ranked causes of death · one untested hidden dependency · one survivable-failure modification · one tripwire metric with a horizon (step 3b; feeds the roadmap template's optional ## Pre-mortem section)
  5. Optional memory candidate — drafted to /memory propose if the pattern clears the admission gate (≥ 2 distinct file paths OR ≥ 3 future decisions)

Do NOT

  • Do NOT invent strawman failure modes — each must be grounded in the actual plan's structure, assumptions, or dependencies.
  • Do NOT re-implement L × I scoring — invoke risk-officer; don't duplicate its five-lens framework inline.
  • Do NOT present speculation as evidence — premortem is imaginative framing, not a prediction; label scenarios as prospective.
  • Do NOT auto-promote memory candidates — /memory propose is the intake; /memory promote requires explicit human action and passes check_memory_proposal.ts.

Gotchas

  • Premortem is forward-looking — it imagines a future failure to improve the present plan. blameless-post-mortem is backward-looking — it analyses a past failure. Do not conflate them.
  • The early-warning signal is the load-bearing output, not the doom list. A failure mode without a detectable signal cannot be caught in time — flag it explicitly.
  • Failure stories in past tense ("we shipped, and then X happened") are more generative than abstract risk statements. Force the past-tense narrative.

See also

  • risk-officer — L × I scoring; invoked in Step 2. Not duplicated here.
  • adversarial-review — assumption attack; invoked in Step 2. Not duplicated here.
  • blameless-post-mortem — post-hoc analysis of an actual failure; backward-looking counterpart to this skill.
  • Invocation surfaces: /analyze premortem, feature:plan, roadmap-create (surface the premortem step as optional before committing to a plan).

Frequently asked questions

What to verify before installation and use

What does the premortem source document cover?

Forward-looking imagined-failure analysis. Sibling of blameless-post-mortem (which analyses what actually went wrong after the fact) and risk-officer (which scores pre-commit risks per likelihood × impact). This skill adds the prospective frame: "Assume total failure at horizon…

How do I install premortem?

The source record exposes this install command: npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/premortem". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Alternatives

Compare before choosing

Computed 10045,960

coreyhaines31/marketingskills

ab-testing

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program

Computed 10025,136

alirezarezvani/claude-skills

app-store-optimization

App Store Optimization (ASO) toolkit for researching keywords, analyzing competitor rankings, generating metadata suggestions, and improving app visibility on Apple App Store and Google Play Store. Use when the user asks about ASO, app store rankings, app metadata, app titles and descriptions, app store listings, app visibility, or mobile app marketing on iOS or Android. Supports keyword research and scoring, competitor keyword analysis, metadata optimization, A/B test planning, launch checklist

Computed 100147

equinor/neqsim

neqsim-professional-reporting

Engineering deliverable quality — the nine analytical-depth moves (contributor ranking, adjudicating the source document, quantitative rule-outs, robustness crossover, conservatism direction, discriminating test), results.json schema, figure→discussion→linked_results traceability, evidence matrices, assumptions/gaps registers, citation conventions, KaTeX math formatting, units consistency, executive-summary structure, AACE class declaration. USE WHEN: producing a task report, a PEPR/M1/root-caus

Computed 100133

JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills

suede-ab-testing

Suede-owned experimentation discipline for hypotheses, sample sizing, test duration, significance, and repeatable experiment programs. Use when comparing variants, deciding whether a result is reliable, or building an experiment backlog and cadence. NOT FOR: analytics instrumentation (use suede-analytics), post-click conversion diagnosis (use suede-site-alchemy), or writing the variant copy itself (use suede-copy).