
lessons-learned
by aplaceforallmystuff
A co-operating system for human-led knowledge work
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
- Define the incident factually
- Build a timeline
- Find root cause with 5 Whys
- Identify contributing factors
- Implement fixes (don't just recommend them)
- 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
| Time | Action | Actor | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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)
-
Why did [incident] happen? → Because [immediate cause]
-
Why did [immediate cause] happen? → Because [deeper cause]
-
Why did [deeper cause] happen? → Because [systemic issue]
-
Why did [systemic issue] exist? → Because [process gap]
-
Why did [process gap] exist? → Because [root cause]
Root Cause: [The fundamental issue to address]
Phase 4: Contributing Factors
| Category | Factor | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Process | Missing checkpoint | [How it contributed] |
| Communication | Unclear instructions | [How it contributed] |
| Technical | No validation | [How it contributed] |
| Context | Prior assumptions | [How it contributed] |
Phase 5: Fix Classification
| Fix Type | When to Use | How to Encode |
|---|---|---|
| Skill | Recurring workflow needs structure | Create new skill |
| Guard | Action requires checkpoint | Add approval gate |
| Documentation | Knowledge gap | Update CLAUDE.md |
| Automation | Manual step forgotten | Create script/hook |
| Checklist | Multiple steps need verification | Add to skill |
Phase 6: Fix Implementation
Don't just recommend fixes—implement them.
| Fix | Type | Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| [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-Pattern | Problem | Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Blame assignment | Misses systemic issues | Focus on process |
| Single-cause thinking | Oversimplifies | Use 5 Whys |
| Recommendation without action | Lessons forgotten | Implement during retrospective |
| Vague fixes | "Be more careful" doesn't work | Encode 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
Based on repository quality metrics
SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている
ライセンスが設定されている
100文字以上の説明がある
GitHub Stars 100以上
1ヶ月以内に更新
10回以上フォークされている
オープンIssueが50未満
プログラミング言語が設定されている
1つ以上のタグが設定されている
Reviews
Reviews coming soon
