القائمة
Use when a completed session needs behavioral retrospective analysis.
Use when multiple independent read-only research tasks can run simultaneously, or when you need to fan out investigation across many files or hypotheses.
Use when communication quality or trust is in question. Always active -- applies to every session, every turn, every task.
Use when completing any session.
Use when delegating implementation tasks, confirming theories, running parallel research, or reviewing completed work.
Use when running parallel agent work, testing an approach in isolation, or keeping the main branch clean while a subagent operates on a separate branch.
Use when a feature has new or unclear acceptance criteria, a plan has 2+ todos and Discovery ran, or an implementer signals BLOCKED or DONE_WITH_CONCERNS.
| name | session-postmortem |
| license | MIT |
| description | Use when a completed session needs behavioral retrospective analysis. |
ANALYZE BEHAVIOR, NOT JUST OUTCOMES -- FIND WHERE THE MODEL RATIONALIZED
YOU MUST examine the session for rationalization patterns. A clean outcome does not prove a clean process. No exceptions.
Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.
Announce at start: "I am using the session-postmortem skill to analyze [session description]."
Before starting the postmortem analysis:
events.jsonl log is accessible at the path provided by the user or session context.self-assessment.md in the repo root from memory, before reading any session artifacts. The Independence Gate in references/POSTMORTEM_STRUCTURE.md requires self-assessment to be written from memory first. The external reviewer reads self-assessment.md to find discrepancies between what the agent claimed and what the log shows. A postmortem without a self-assessment is missing the agent's own perspective.checkpoints/index.md to determine the full session scope (only after self-assessment.md is written). Context compaction does not shorten the session. A self-assessment that covers only the final task of a 9-hour session is incomplete. If checkpoints/ does not exist, note the absence and determine scope from the compacted context summary and events.jsonl instead.postmortem-reviewer subagent as external reviewer. For self-assessment authorship rules, follow the Independence Gate in references/POSTMORTEM_STRUCTURE.md.
EXTERNAL reviewer subagent: No session memory. Read events.jsonl cold.[+] All 5 met -> proceed through all postmortem parts in order [-] Any unmet -> STOP. Wait for the session to complete, locate the events log, run self-evaluation and write self-assessment.md from memory first (Independence Gate), then read checkpoints/index.md (or note its absence) to determine scope, then dispatch the external reviewer.
Full structure and templates: references/POSTMORTEM_STRUCTURE.md. Full batch commands: references/BATCH_ANALYSIS.md.
Parts in order: Timeline -> Root Cause -> Contributing Factors -> What Went Well -> Action Items.
Part 4b (Where We Got Lucky) is the most commonly omitted part -- it is not optional. Part 4c (User Prompt Quality Review) is not optional and is not softened to avoid conflict.
If any of the following apply, the verdict is at minimum NEEDS IMPROVEMENT:
postmortem-reviewer subagent now.docs/postmortem/YYYY-MM-DD-[SESSION_SHORT_ID].md -- STOP. Create the file now.Three or more of the above = SYSTEMIC ISSUE. Relevant skills need immediate rationalization table updates.
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It was mostly fine, no need for a postmortem" | "Mostly fine" hides the one failure that will recur. Systematic review is required. |
| "It was a one-off mistake, not a pattern" | Check the full session before concluding that. One-off mistakes look different from patterns only after you check. |
| "The outcome was good, so the process must have been right" | Good outcome from bad process means the failure did not trigger this time. It will. |
| "The user didn't complain" | Some failures are silent. The agent may have produced a plausible wrong answer the user accepted. Postmortem finds those. |
| "Self-evaluation already covered this" | Self-eval is by the agent. Postmortem is external. Different perspective, different blind spots. Both are necessary. |
| "The session was short, not worth analyzing" | Short sessions have failure modes too. A short session gets a proportionate postmortem -- 10 minutes, not an hour. |
| "I'll skip the external reviewer, it's just overhead" | The external reviewer reads events the agent rationalized away. Skipping it means the postmortem finds only what the agent was willing to find. |
| "User asked a direct question while the external reviewer is still running -- I can answer while it finishes" | NO. The only permissible action between dispatching the external reviewer and read_agent returning is polling (read_agent). Do NOT answer the question, summarize findings, or output any assessment. Tell the user you are waiting for the external reviewer to complete, then continue polling. |
self-evaluation (complements, does not replace) | execution (iron laws) | verification-before-completion (completion gate) | writing-skills (skill-reviewer for gaps)