用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/a5c-ai/babysitter --skill pre-mortem-facilitator命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
Reference for querying the Atlas knowledge graph through its MCP tools — the SECONDARY enrichment/comparison layer that adds best-practice context to systems you have ALREADY scanned from your real sources (`az`, repos, dirs). Use when you need to look up nodes, edges, kinds, clusters, stats, or wiki pages in Atlas to compare against your real inventory. (atlas graph, query atlas, atlas mcp, search the graph, graph neighbors, atlas record, atlas kinds, enrichment layer)
Atlas turns your STATED NEED into a real systems atlas by SCANNING your actual sources (Azure via `az`, git repos, local dirs) and process/data mining them, THEN enriching against the Atlas knowledge graph. Use this skill when asked to inventory/map your real systems, scan your cloud + repos + directories, mine the real processes or data they contain, or collect their real constraints/gotchas. (atlas, scan my systems, inventory our azure account, map my repos, real systems atlas, process mining, data mining, collect nuances, system discovery)
This skill should be used when the user asks to "find skills in the wild", "assimilate popular workflows", "discover SKILL.md files in repos", "research external skills", "find workflow patterns", "survey the skill landscape", "what skills exist out there", or wants to investigate public repositories for extractable processes, babysitter plugins, and reusable procedural insights. Searches GitHub for SKILL.md files, classifies repos by archetype, and maintains structured research under docs/reference-repos/.
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | pre-mortem-facilitator |
| description | Pre-mortem analysis skill for prospective hindsight and failure mode identification |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Glob","Grep","Bash"] |
| metadata | {"specialization":"decision-intelligence","domain":"business","category":"collaboration","priority":"medium","tools-libraries":["custom workflows","markdown","collaboration tools"]} |
| graph | {"domains":["domain:business-intelligence"],"skillAreas":["skill-area:strategic-analysis","skill-area:change-management","skill-area:business-analysis"],"roles":["role:strategic-planner","role:business-analyst","role:data-analyst"]} |
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.
# 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
}
# 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"
]
}
# 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",
:
}
],
: [
{
: ,
: ,
: ,
: ,
:
}
]
}
# 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
}
# 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"
}
]
{
"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"]
{
"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"],
| 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 |