pre-mortem-facilitator
Pre-mortem analysis skill for prospective hindsight and failure mode identification
Best use case
pre-mortem-facilitator is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Pre-mortem analysis skill for prospective hindsight and failure mode identification
Teams using pre-mortem-facilitator should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/pre-mortem-facilitator/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How pre-mortem-facilitator Compares
| Feature / Agent | pre-mortem-facilitator | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Pre-mortem analysis skill for prospective hindsight and failure mode identification
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Pre-mortem Facilitator
## Overview
The Pre-mortem Facilitator skill provides structured capabilities for conducting pre-mortem analyses. Using prospective hindsight, it helps teams identify potential failure modes before implementation, enabling proactive risk mitigation and more robust decision-making.
## Capabilities
- Pre-mortem session structuring
- Failure mode collection
- Frequency and impact assessment
- Mitigation strategy brainstorming
- Action item generation
- Bias challenge integration
- Documentation and tracking
- Follow-up scheduling
## Used By Processes
- Cognitive Bias Debiasing Process
- Decision Quality Assessment
- Structured Decision Making Process
## Usage
### Session Setup
```python
# Configure pre-mortem session
session_config = {
"decision": "Launch of New Product Line",
"decision_summary": "Expand into adjacent market with modified existing product",
"investment": 5000000,
"timeline": "18 months",
"success_criteria": [
"Achieve $10M revenue in year 1",
"Capture 5% market share by year 2",
"Maintain 40% gross margin"
],
"participants": [
{"name": "Project Lead", "role": "facilitator"},
{"name": "Product Manager", "perspective": "product"},
{"name": "Sales Director", "perspective": "market"},
{"name": "Finance Lead", "perspective": "financial"},
{"name": "Operations Lead", "perspective": "execution"},
{"name": "External Advisor", "perspective": "devils_advocate"}
],
"session_duration": 90 # minutes
}
```
### Pre-mortem Scenario
```python
# The hypothetical failure scenario
failure_scenario = {
"date": "18 months from now",
"headline": "Product Launch Fails to Meet Revenue Targets",
"narrative": """
It is now 18 months after the product launch. Despite significant investment
and effort, the product has achieved only $3M in revenue (30% of target)
and 1.5% market share. The project is being reviewed for discontinuation.
Your task: Write down all the reasons why this failure occurred.
Be specific and think about what went wrong from your perspective.
""",
"instructions": [
"Work independently for 10 minutes",
"Write down every reason you can think of",
"Be specific - name names, dates, decisions",
"Consider both internal and external factors",
"Don't filter - capture all ideas"
]
}
```
### Failure Mode Collection
```python
# Collected failure modes
failure_modes = {
"product": [
{
"id": "FM-001",
"description": "Product features didn't meet customer needs in target segment",
"contributor": "Product Manager",
"category": "Product-Market Fit",
"root_cause": "Insufficient customer research before development"
},
{
"id": "FM-002",
"description": "Quality issues led to negative reviews and returns",
"contributor": "Operations Lead",
"category": "Product Quality",
"root_cause": "Rushed timeline compressed QA testing"
}
],
"market": [
{
"id": "FM-003",
"description": "Competitor launched similar product at 30% lower price",
"contributor": "Sales Director",
"category": "Competitive Response",
"root_cause": "Underestimated competitor agility"
}
],
"execution": [
{
"id": "FM-004",
"description": "Key talent left mid-project, causing knowledge loss",
"contributor": "Project Lead",
"category": "Team",
"root_cause": "No succession planning or documentation"
}
],
"external": [
{
"id": "FM-005",
"description": "Economic downturn reduced customer budgets",
"contributor": "Finance Lead",
"category": "Economic",
"root_cause": "No contingency for demand scenarios"
}
]
}
```
### Risk Assessment
```python
# Assess each failure mode
risk_assessment = {
"FM-001": {
"likelihood": 0.4, # estimated probability
"impact": "high",
"impact_score": 4,
"detectability": "low", # how easily we'd see it coming
"risk_priority": 6.4, # likelihood * impact * (1/detectability)
},
"FM-002": {
"likelihood": 0.3,
"impact": "high",
"impact_score": 4,
"detectability": "medium",
"risk_priority": 3.6
}
# ... assess all failure modes
}
```
### Mitigation Actions
```python
# Define mitigations
mitigation_actions = [
{
"failure_mode_ids": ["FM-001"],
"action": "Conduct additional customer discovery with 20 target segment customers",
"owner": "Product Manager",
"due_date": "Before development start",
"resources_needed": "Research budget $50K",
"success_indicator": "Validated feature prioritization from customer feedback"
},
{
"failure_mode_ids": ["FM-002"],
"action": "Extend QA timeline by 4 weeks, add beta testing phase",
"owner": "Operations Lead",
"due_date": "Update in project plan",
"resources_needed": "Schedule adjustment",
"success_indicator": "Defect rate < 1% at launch"
},
{
"failure_mode_ids": ["FM-003"],
"action": "Develop competitive response playbook with pricing scenarios",
"owner": "Sales Director",
"due_date": "30 days before launch",
"resources_needed": "Competitive intelligence input",
"success_indicator": "Response plan for 3 competitor scenarios"
}
]
```
## Input Schema
```json
{
"session_config": {
"decision": "string",
"investment": "number",
"timeline": "string",
"success_criteria": ["string"],
"participants": ["object"]
},
"failure_scenario": {
"narrative": "string",
"instructions": ["string"]
},
"failure_modes": ["object"],
"risk_assessment": "object",
"mitigations": ["object"]
}
```
## Output Schema
```json
{
"session_summary": {
"decision": "string",
"date": "string",
"participants": "number",
"failure_modes_identified": "number"
},
"failure_modes": [
{
"id": "string",
"description": "string",
"category": "string",
"likelihood": "number",
"impact": "string",
"risk_priority": "number"
}
],
"top_risks": ["object"],
"mitigation_plan": [
{
"action": "string",
"owner": "string",
"due_date": "string",
"addresses": ["string"]
}
],
"follow_up": {
"next_review_date": "string",
"unaddressed_risks": ["string"]
}
}
```
## Pre-mortem Benefits
| Benefit | Mechanism |
|---------|-----------|
| Overcomes overconfidence | Assumes failure, forcing critical thinking |
| Surfaces hidden concerns | Safe space to voice doubts |
| Identifies blind spots | Multiple perspectives |
| Enables proactive action | Time to mitigate before commitment |
| Builds team alignment | Shared understanding of risks |
## Best Practices
1. Conduct before final commitment, not after
2. Make the failure scenario vivid and specific
3. Ensure psychological safety for honest input
4. Include diverse perspectives (skeptics welcome)
5. Focus on actionable failure modes
6. Convert insights to concrete mitigations
7. Follow up to ensure actions are completed
## Facilitation Tips
- Use independent writing before group discussion
- Encourage specificity ("John missed the deadline" vs. "delays occurred")
- Separate idea generation from evaluation
- Give equal airtime to all participants
- Document everything, even unlikely scenarios
- End with concrete next steps
## Integration Points
- Feeds into Risk Register Manager for tracking
- Connects with Decision Quality Assessor for process evaluation
- Supports Debiasing Coach agent
- Integrates with Decision Journal for documentationRelated Skills
hazop-facilitator
HAZOP study facilitation skill for systematic deviation analysis and safeguard identification
design-review-facilitator
Design review planning and execution skill for structured design phase gate reviews per 21 CFR 820.30
retrospective-facilitator
Generate retrospective formats and analyze improvement actions
sop-facilitator
Sales and Operations Planning process facilitation skill with demand-supply balancing and cross-functional alignment
kaizen-event-facilitator
Rapid improvement workshop planning and execution skill with team coordination, metrics tracking, and follow-up management
fmea-facilitator
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis facilitation skill for products and processes with risk prioritization and control implementation
process-builder
Scaffold new babysitter process definitions following SDK patterns, proper structure, and best practices. Guides the 3-phase workflow from research to implementation.
babysitter
Orchestrate via @babysitter. Use this skill when asked to babysit a run, orchestrate a process or whenever it is called explicitly. (babysit, babysitter, orchestrate, orchestrate a run, workflow, etc.)
yolo
Run Babysitter autonomously with minimal manual interruption.
user-install
Install the user-level Babysitter Codex setup.
team-install
Install the team-pinned Babysitter Codex workspace setup.
retrospect
Summarize or retrospect on a completed Babysitter run.