AA after-action-report
Run a structured after-action review (postmortem, retrospective) on a launch, incident, or completed project to capture timeline, root cause analysis, contributing factors, and actionable lessons. Use this skill whenever the user wants to run a postmortem, retrospective, AAR, or after-action review on any past event. Triggers on after-action report, AAR, postmortem, retrospective, retro, post-incident review, what went well what didn't, lessons learned, blameless postmortem, root cause analysis, RCA, five whys. Also triggers when the user has just shipped something or just resolved an incident and wants to capture learnings.
Run a structured after-action review (postmortem, retrospective) on a launch, incident, or completed project to capture timeline, root cause analysis…
As a process A 81/100 · Runs to the end — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting
The same skill appears in 2 more places: claude-skills, claude-skills
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 81/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 85Steps. 79 steps, 1 vague phrases
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Result and completion. Output format and completion criterion are stated
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2280 tokens
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 632: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 25 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 79 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.