Premortem

作者 parcadeid07ff4b06b62无许可证3.9K 个星标收录于 2026年10月8日更新于 2026年10月8日仓库8个月前更新

Identify failure modes before they occur using structured risk analysis

仅含说明Productivity & WorkflowSoftware Development
AI 生成的概览

结构化的事前验尸风险分析，在动工前找出计划、设计与代码中的失败模式。

功能
该技能依据 Gary Klein 的方法引导智能体开展事前验尸，使用老虎、纸老虎和大象三类风险分类。它针对计划、拉取请求或实现运行快速或深度清单，结合上下文与已有缓解措施核实每个潜在风险，并输出包含老虎、大象、纸老虎、误报和清单缺口的 YAML 报告。随后它把发现呈现给用户决策，并可将风险缓解章节追加到计划中。
适用场景
适用于实现功能之前、计划制定或批准期间，或在审查拉取请求时尽早发现失败模式。它适合需要对计划、设计或差异进行压力测试，检查依赖、集成、需求、测试和流程风险的场景。
运行要求
仅为指令，不附带脚本。它依赖智能体具备读取与搜索文件、委派任务、向用户提问和跟踪待办的工具，并可能引用仓库中的计划文件。

Pre-Mortem

Identify failure modes before they occur by systematically questioning plans, designs, and implementations. Based on Gary Klein's technique, popularized by Shreyas Doshi (Stripe).

Usage

/premortem              # Auto-detect context, choose depth/premortem quick        # Force quick analysis (plans, PRs)/premortem deep         # Force deep analysis (before implementation)/premortem <file>       # Analyze specific plan or code

Core Concept

"Imagine it's 3 months from now and this project has failed spectacularly. Why did it fail?"

Risk Categories (Shreyas Framework)

CategorySymbolMeaning
Tiger[TIGER]Clear threat that will hurt us if not addressed
Paper Tiger[PAPER]Looks threatening but probably fine
Elephant[ELEPHANT]Thing nobody wants to talk about

CRITICAL: Verify Before Flagging

Do NOT flag risks based on pattern-matching alone. Every potential tiger MUST go through verification.

The False Positive Problem

Common mistakes that create false tigers:

  • Seeing a hardcoded path without checking for if exists(): fallback
  • Finding missing feature X without asking "is X in scope?"
  • Flagging code at line N without reading lines N±20 for context
  • Assuming error case isn't handled without tracing the code

Verification Checklist (REQUIRED)

Before flagging ANY tiger, verify:

yaml
potential_finding:  what: "Hardcoded path at line 42"
verification:  context_read: true    # Did I read ±20 lines around the finding?  fallback_check: true  # Is there try/except, if exists(), or else branch?  scope_check: true     # Is this even in scope for this code?  dev_only_check: true  # Is this in __main__, tests/, or dev-only code?
result: tiger | paper_tiger | false_alarm

If ANY verification check is "no" or "unknown", DO NOT flag as tiger.

Required Evidence Format

Every tiger MUST include:

yaml
tiger:  risk: "<description>"  location: "file.py:42"  severity: high|medium  # REQUIRED - what mitigation was checked and NOT found:  mitigation_checked: "No exists() check, no try/except, no fallback branch"

If you cannot fill in mitigation_checked with specific evidence, it's not a verified tiger.

Workflow

Step 1: Detect Context & Depth

python
# Auto-detect based on contextif in_plan_creation:    depth = "quick"   # Localized scopeelif before_implementation:    depth = "deep"    # Global scopeelif pr_review:    depth = "quick"   # Localized scopeelse:    # Ask user    AskUserQuestion(        question="What depth of pre-mortem analysis?",        header="Depth",        options=[            {"label": "Quick (2-3 min)", "description": "Plans, PRs, localized changes"},            {"label": "Deep (5-10 min)", "description": "Before implementation, global scope"}        ]    )

Step 2: Run Appropriate Checklist

Quick Checklist (Plans, PRs)

Run through these mentally, note any that apply:

Core Questions:

  1. What's the single biggest thing that could go wrong?
  2. Any external dependencies that could fail?
  3. Is rollback possible if this breaks?
  4. Edge cases not covered in tests?
  5. Unclear requirements that could cause rework?

Output Format:

yaml
premortem:  mode: quick  context: "<plan/PR being analyzed>"
  # Two-pass process: first gather potential risks, then verify each one  potential_risks:  # Pass 1: Pattern-matching findings    - "hardcoded path at line 42"    - "missing error handling for X"
  # Pass 2: After verification  tigers:    - risk: "<description>"      location: "file.py:42"      severity: high|medium      category: dependency|integration|requirements|testing      mitigation_checked: "<what was NOT found>"  # REQUIRED
  elephants:    - risk: "<unspoken concern>"      severity: medium
  paper_tigers:    - risk: "<looks scary but ok>"      reason: "<why it's fine - what mitigation EXISTS>"      location: "file.py:42-48"  # Show the mitigation location
  false_alarms:  # Findings that turned out to be nothing    - finding: "<what was initially flagged>"      reason: "<why it's not a risk>"
Deep Checklist (Before Implementation)

Work through each category systematically:

Technical Risks:

  • Scalability: Works at 10x/100x current load?
  • Dependencies: External services + fallbacks defined?
  • Data: Availability, consistency, migrations clear?
  • Latency: SLA requirements will be met?
  • Security: Auth, injection, OWASP considered?
  • Error handling: All failure modes covered?

Integration Risks:

  • Breaking changes identified?
  • Migration path defined?
  • Rollback strategy exists?
  • Feature flags needed?

Process Risks:

  • Requirements clear and complete?
  • All stakeholder input gathered?
  • Tech debt being tracked?
  • Maintenance burden understood?

Testing Risks:

  • Coverage gaps identified?
  • Integration test plan exists?
  • Load testing needed?
  • Manual testing plan defined?

Output Format:

yaml
premortem:  mode: deep  context: "<implementation being analyzed>"
  # Two-pass process  potential_risks:  # Pass 1: Initial scan findings    - "no circuit breaker for external API"    - "hardcoded timeout value"
  # Pass 2: After verification (read context, check for mitigations)  tigers:    - risk: "<description>"      location: "file.py:42"      severity: high|medium      category: scalability|dependency|data|security|integration|testing      mitigation_checked: "<what mitigations were looked for and NOT found>"      suggested_fix: "<how to address>"
  elephants:    - risk: "<unspoken concern>"      severity: medium|high      suggested_fix: "<suggested approach>"
  paper_tigers:    - risk: "<looks scary>"      reason: "<why it's actually ok - cite the mitigation code>"      location: "file.py:45-52"
  false_alarms:    - finding: "<initial concern>"      reason: "<why verification showed it's not a risk>"
  checklist_gaps:    - category: "<which checklist section>"      items_failed: ["<item1>", "<item2>"]

Step 3: Present Risks via AskUserQuestion

BLOCKING: Present findings and require user decision.

python
# Build risk summaryrisk_summary = format_risks(tigers, elephants)
AskUserQuestion(    question=f"""Pre-Mortem identified {len(tigers)} tigers, {len(elephants)} elephants:
{risk_summary}
How would you like to proceed?""",    header="Risks",    options=[        {            "label": "Accept risks and proceed",            "description": "Acknowledged but not blocking"        },        {            "label": "Add mitigations to plan (Recommended)",            "description": "Update plan with risk mitigations before proceeding"        },        {            "label": "Research mitigation options",            "description": "I don't know how to mitigate - help me find solutions"        },        {            "label": "Discuss specific risks",            "description": "Talk through particular concerns"        }    ])

Step 4: Handle User Response

If "Accept risks and proceed"
python
# Log acceptance for audit trailprint("Risks acknowledged. Proceeding with implementation.")# Continue to next workflow step
If "Add mitigations to plan"
python
# User provides mitigation approach# Update plan file with mitigations section# Re-run quick premortem to verify mitigations address risks
If "Research mitigation options"
python
# Spawn parallel research for each HIGH severity tigerfor tiger in high_severity_tigers:    # Internal: How has codebase handled this before?    Task(        subagent_type="scout",        prompt=f"""        Find how this codebase has previously handled: {tiger.category}
        Specifically looking for patterns related to: {tiger.risk}
        Return:        - File:line references to similar solutions        - Patterns used        - Libraries/utilities available        """    )
    # External: What are best practices?    Task(        subagent_type="oracle",        prompt=f"""        Research best practices for: {tiger.risk}
        Context: {tiger.category} in a {tech_stack} codebase
        Return:        - Recommended approaches (ranked)        - Library options        - Common pitfalls to avoid        """    )
# Wait for research to complete# Synthesize options# Present via AskUserQuestion with 2-4 mitigation options
If "Discuss specific risks"
python
# Ask which risk to discussAskUserQuestion(    question="Which risk would you like to discuss?",    header="Risk",    options=[format_risk_option(r) for r in all_risks[:4]])# Then have conversation about that specific risk

Step 5: Update Plan (if mitigations added)

If user added mitigations, append to the plan:

markdown
## Risk Mitigations (Pre-Mortem)
### Tigers Addressed:1. **{risk}** (severity: {severity})   - Mitigation: {user_or_researched_mitigation}   - Added to phase: {phase_number}
### Accepted Risks:1. **{risk}** - Accepted because: {reason}
### Pre-Mortem Run:- Date: {timestamp}- Mode: {quick|deep}- Tigers: {count}- Elephants: {count}

Integration Points

In create_plan / plan-agent

After plan structure is approved, before ExitPlanMode:

python
# Run quick premortem/premortem quick
# If HIGH risks found, block until addressed# If only MEDIUM/LOW, inform and proceed

After plan approval, before implementation

python
# Run deep premortem on full plan/premortem deep thoughts/shared/plans/YYYY-MM-DD-feature.md
# Block until all HIGH tigers addressed

In PR review workflows

python
# Run quick premortem on diff scope/premortem quick
# Inform of any risks found

Severity Thresholds

SeverityBlocking?Action Required
HIGHYesMust address or explicitly accept
MEDIUMNoInform user, recommend addressing
LOWNoNote for awareness

Example Session

User: /premortem deep thoughts/shared/plans/2026-01-08-api-rate-limiting.md
Claude: Running deep pre-mortem on API rate limiting plan...
[Reviews plan against deep checklist]
Pre-mortem complete. Found 2 tigers, 1 elephant:
**TIGERS:**1. [HIGH] No circuit breaker for external payment API   - Category: dependency   - If payment API is slow/down, requests will pile up
2. [HIGH] No rollback strategy defined   - Category: integration   - If rate limiting breaks auth flow, no quick fix path
**ELEPHANTS:**1. [MEDIUM] Team hasn't used Redis before   - We're introducing Redis for rate limit counters   - Learning curve could slow implementation
**PAPER TIGERS:**1. Database migration size - Only adds one index, <1s migration
[AskUserQuestion presented]
User: Research mitigation options
Claude: Researching mitigations...
[Spawns scout + oracle in parallel]
Found 3 options for circuit breaker:
1. **Use existing retry util** (Recommended)   - Found at src/utils/retry.ts:45   - Already handles exponential backoff   - Just need to add circuit breaker state
2. **Add resilience4j-lite**   - Popular library for this pattern   - More features but new dependency
3. **Custom implementation**   - Full control but more code to maintain
Which approach for the circuit breaker?
User: Option 1 - use existing retry util
Claude: Added to plan:
## Risk Mitigations (Pre-Mortem)
### Tigers Addressed:1. **No circuit breaker** (HIGH)   - Mitigation: Extend src/utils/retry.ts with circuit breaker state   - Added to Phase 1
Shall I also address the rollback strategy tiger?

References

来源与署名

来源：parcadei/continuous-claude-v3位于.claude/skills/premortem提交d07ff4b

许可证： 无许可证

内容归原作者所有。SourceWeft 从公开仓库中收录这些内容。

举报或申请下架

更多来自 parcadei/continuous-claude-v3 的技能

Tldr Stats

parcadei

展示会话 token 用量、API 费用、TLDR 压缩节省额以及 hook 活动情况的仪表盘。

Data & Analytics3.9K8个月前更新

Wiring

parcadei

指导验证已构建的基础设施组件是否真正被调用，而非成为死代码。

Software Development3.9K8个月前更新

Workflow Router

parcadei

将用户目标路由到相应的专家代理和资源级别，用于研究、规划、构建或修复任务。

AI & Agents3.9K8个月前更新

Validate Agent

parcadei

根据当前最佳实践验证技术方案中的技术选型，并生成验证交接文档。

Software Development3.9K8个月前更新

Tour

parcadei

当用户询问能力时，提供友好的入门介绍，概述智能体可以做什么。

AI & Agents3.9K8个月前更新

Tldr Overview

parcadei

使用 TLDR 工具链生成节省 token 的项目概览，涵盖文件树、代码结构、调用图与复杂度。

Software Development3.9K8个月前更新

更多Productivity & Workflow技能

Dd Meeting Prep

anthropics

精选

为尽职调查会议（如管理层演示、专家访谈）准备问题清单、基准数据和需重点探查的风险信号。

Productivity & Workflow39K2周前更新

Dd Checklist

anthropics

精选

生成并跟踪按行业定制的尽职调查清单，涵盖各工作流、状态跟踪与红旗升级。

Productivity & Workflow39K2周前更新

Deal Tracker

anthropics

精选

跟踪进行中的并购交易，管理里程碑、截止日期、行动项和每周交易回顾。

Productivity & Workflow39K2周前更新

Client Review

anthropics

精选

为客户回顾会议准备投资组合业绩、配置分析、谈话要点和行动事项。

Productivity & Workflow39K2周前更新

Morning Note

anthropics

精选

为覆盖股票撰写简明的晨会纪要，涵盖隔夜动态、交易想法和当日关键事件。

Productivity & Workflow39K2周前更新

Notion Spec To Implementation

openai

精选

把 Notion 规格说明转化为实施计划、关联任务和进度更新。

Productivity & Workflow27K4周前更新