Back to list
aplaceforallmystuff

lessons-learned

by aplaceforallmystuff

A co-operating system for human-led knowledge work

4🍴 2📅 Jan 20, 2026

SKILL.md


name: lessons-learned description: Structured retrospective for incidents and mistakes. Transforms problems into systematic improvements. use_when: After incidents, mistakes, rollbacks, or when analyzing what went wrong. Triggers on "lessons learned", "post-mortem", "what went wrong", "how do we prevent this".

Lessons Learned

Transform problems into systematic improvements through structured retrospective analysis.

Why This Matters

Mistakes repeat when we only fix symptoms. With structured retrospectives:

  • Root causes get addressed, not just symptoms
  • Fixes are encoded into the system (skills, guards, docs)
  • Each problem makes the system stronger
  • You never hear "we should have thought about that first"

Quick Start

  1. Define the incident factually
  2. Build a timeline
  3. Find root cause with 5 Whys
  4. Identify contributing factors
  5. Implement fixes (don't just recommend them)
  6. Define verification criteria

Process

Phase 1: Incident Definition

Capture facts first, analysis later.

## Incident Summary

**What happened:** [Factual description]
**When:** [Date/time]
**Impact:** [What was affected]
**Resolution:** [How it was fixed]
**Time to resolution:** [How long to fix]

Phase 2: Timeline Reconstruction

TimeActionActorOutcome
HH:MM[What was done][Who][Result]

Key questions:

  • What was the trigger?
  • Where did things diverge from expected?
  • What was the point of no return?

Phase 3: Root Cause Analysis (5 Whys)

  1. Why did [incident] happen? → Because [immediate cause]

  2. Why did [immediate cause] happen? → Because [deeper cause]

  3. Why did [deeper cause] happen? → Because [systemic issue]

  4. Why did [systemic issue] exist? → Because [process gap]

  5. Why did [process gap] exist? → Because [root cause]

Root Cause: [The fundamental issue to address]

Phase 4: Contributing Factors

CategoryFactorContribution
ProcessMissing checkpoint[How it contributed]
CommunicationUnclear instructions[How it contributed]
TechnicalNo validation[How it contributed]
ContextPrior assumptions[How it contributed]

Phase 5: Fix Classification

Fix TypeWhen to UseHow to Encode
SkillRecurring workflow needs structureCreate new skill
GuardAction requires checkpointAdd approval gate
DocumentationKnowledge gapUpdate CLAUDE.md
AutomationManual step forgottenCreate script/hook
ChecklistMultiple steps need verificationAdd to skill

Phase 6: Fix Implementation

Don't just recommend fixes—implement them.

FixTypeLocationStatus
[Description]Skill[Path]Created
[Description]Doc[Path]Updated

Phase 7: Verification

**Test scenario:** [How to test the fix]
**Success criteria:** [What "fixed" looks like]
**Review date:** [When to check if working]

Output Template

# Lessons Learned: [Incident Title]

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Severity:** Low | Medium | High | Critical
**Status:** Resolved | Monitoring | Open

## Incident Summary
[Brief description]

## Timeline
| Time | Action | Outcome |

## Root Cause
[The fundamental issue]

## Contributing Factors
- Factor 1
- Factor 2

## Fixes Implemented
| Fix | Type | Location | Status |

## Prevention
[How this prevents recurrence]

## Lessons
1. Key takeaway 1
2. Key takeaway 2

Common Patterns

Premature Action

Symptom: Action taken before approval Fix: Add explicit approval gate

Sequence Error

Symptom: Steps in wrong order Fix: Encode sequence with numbered steps

Missing Validation

Symptom: Bad data passed through Fix: Add validation checkpoint

Context Carryover

Symptom: Assumptions from prior session caused issue Fix: Add explicit context verification

Scope Creep

Symptom: Did more than requested Fix: Ask clarifying questions before expanding

Anti-Patterns

Anti-PatternProblemInstead
Blame assignmentMisses systemic issuesFocus on process
Single-cause thinkingOversimplifiesUse 5 Whys
Recommendation without actionLessons forgottenImplement during retrospective
Vague fixes"Be more careful" doesn't workEncode specific changes

Success Criteria

  • Incident clearly defined with timeline
  • Root cause identified (not just symptoms)
  • Contributing factors documented
  • At least one fix implemented (not just recommended)
  • Fix encoded in appropriate location
  • Verification criteria defined

Score

Total Score

65/100

Based on repository quality metrics

SKILL.md

SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている

+20
LICENSE

ライセンスが設定されている

+10
説明文

100文字以上の説明がある

0/10
人気

GitHub Stars 100以上

0/15
最近の活動

1ヶ月以内に更新

+10
フォーク

10回以上フォークされている

0/5
Issue管理

オープンIssueが50未満

+5
言語

プログラミング言語が設定されている

+5
タグ

1つ以上のタグが設定されている

+5

Reviews

💬

Reviews coming soon