
pre-mortem
by Frank Brsrk
Run disciplined pre-mortems that replace generic risk lists with project-specific failure modes and binding decisions.
- Stress-test a product launch by imagining a 90% churn scenario backward.
- Surface organizational and regulatory blind spots before a major pivot.
- Create binding 'Ulysses Contracts' for high-stakes strategic decisions.
Free
One-time purchase
See it in action
INPUT: a B2B SaaS team running a pre-mortem on their Q3 launch. Phase 2 (free generation) surfaces 8 failure modes. Top by team consensus: "We ship without enterprise SSO and lose three pipeline deals to competitors." Phase 3 (behavioral attractor test) writes: FORBIDDEN FROM RE-DERIVATION: "We ship without enterprise SSO and lose three pipeline deals to competitors." The team re-derives from scratch and produces: "We ship without SOC2 and the same three deals stall in security review." Same structural failure (compliance gap blocks enterprise close), different surface. Behavioral attractor confirmed: the team's recurring failure mode is "we under-invest in enterprise procurement requirements." This is now a higher-priority finding than any single technical gap. Phase 4 (probability/impact) ranks: HIGH probability × Severe impact, anchored against B2B SaaS reference class (founder-led companies historically under-invest in compliance until forced). Phase 5 (pre-commitment design) produces three devices. Each ships with three fields: Device: "SSO + SOC2 readiness assessment by 2026-07-15." NAMED OWNER: CTO (personally answers if the device is breached) EXTERNAL WITNESS: lead investor at next board meeting (told the commitment date) RENEGOTIATION CLAUSE: can be deferred only if a paying enterprise customer signs without SSO/SOC2 as a contractual requirement. OUTPUT DISCIPLINE Step 0 then fires the META-REFLECTION self-check before the analysis ships: did the FORBIDDEN line genuinely re-derive (yes), did ordinal probability anchor to a reference class (yes), do all enforcement devices have three fields (yes), is the analysis traceable to the launch goal (yes), did the team avoid planning-fallacy laundering (yes). Ship.
Run disciplined pre-mortems that replace generic risk lists with project-specific failure modes and binding decisions.
Free
One-time purchase
⚡ Also available via Agensi MCP — your AI agent can load this skill on demand via MCP. Learn more →
Included in download
- Downloadable skill package
- Works with Codex CLI, Cursor
- Instant install
See it in action
INPUT: a B2B SaaS team running a pre-mortem on their Q3 launch. Phase 2 (free generation) surfaces 8 failure modes. Top by team consensus: "We ship without enterprise SSO and lose three pipeline deals to competitors." Phase 3 (behavioral attractor test) writes: FORBIDDEN FROM RE-DERIVATION: "We ship without enterprise SSO and lose three pipeline deals to competitors." The team re-derives from scratch and produces: "We ship without SOC2 and the same three deals stall in security review." Same structural failure (compliance gap blocks enterprise close), different surface. Behavioral attractor confirmed: the team's recurring failure mode is "we under-invest in enterprise procurement requirements." This is now a higher-priority finding than any single technical gap. Phase 4 (probability/impact) ranks: HIGH probability × Severe impact, anchored against B2B SaaS reference class (founder-led companies historically under-invest in compliance until forced). Phase 5 (pre-commitment design) produces three devices. Each ships with three fields: Device: "SSO + SOC2 readiness assessment by 2026-07-15." NAMED OWNER: CTO (personally answers if the device is breached) EXTERNAL WITNESS: lead investor at next board meeting (told the commitment date) RENEGOTIATION CLAUSE: can be deferred only if a paying enterprise customer signs without SSO/SOC2 as a contractual requirement. OUTPUT DISCIPLINE Step 0 then fires the META-REFLECTION self-check before the analysis ships: did the FORBIDDEN line genuinely re-derive (yes), did ordinal probability anchor to a reference class (yes), do all enforcement devices have three fields (yes), is the analysis traceable to the launch goal (yes), did the team avoid planning-fallacy laundering (yes). Ship.
Screenshots
About This Skill
Use Cases
- Stress-test a product launch by imagining a 90% churn scenario backward.
- Surface organizational and regulatory blind spots before a major pivot.
- Create binding 'Ulysses Contracts' for high-stakes strategic decisions.
- Conduct planning audits for internal migrations and infrastructure changes.
Known Limitations
- Requires user-supplied project context; cannot run autonomously without a project to analyze. - Behavioral attractor test (Phase 3) requires the model to actually re-derive failure modes after the FORBIDDEN line is written. Weaker models may pattern-match around the suppression anchor instead of running a fresh derivation; results degrade accordingly. - Pre-commitment enforcement layer (Phase 5) requires real humans to fill the NAMED OWNER and EXTERNAL WITNESS roles. Solo founders can use the skill but the external-witness field becomes harder to populate honestly; the renegotiation clause partially compensates. - Not a substitute for domain-specific risk analysis (security threat modeling, financial risk assessment, regulatory compliance review). The skill catches behavioral and execution failure modes, not domain-technical ones. - Ordinal probability ranking deliberately avoids point estimates. Teams that need calibrated forecasts for resource allocation should pair this skill with a separate forecasting workflow.
How to Install
unzip pre-mortem.zip -d ~/.claude/skills/Reviews
No reviews yet - be the first to share your experience.
Only users who have downloaded or purchased this skill can leave a review.
No reviews yet - be the first to share your experience.
Only users who have downloaded or purchased this skill can leave a review.
Security Scanned
Passed automated security review
Permissions
No special permissions declared or detected
Pure SKILL.md content; no runtime dependencies, no framework version requirement. Works with any compatible agent (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini CLI). Best with reasoning-capable models, because the behavioral attractor test in Phase 3 requires genuine re-derivation rather than pattern-matching around the FORBIDDEN line.
Creator
Building Ejentum, a cognitive harness API for AI agents. Small structured pieces of context retrieved at inference time, so the agent reasons through a task instead of pattern-matching to a generic answer. Adversarial systems thinking is the other thing I'm into: chaos engineering, pre-mortems, blast-radius design. Those skills sit alongside the Ejentum harness wrappers on this profile. Solo builder, open source most of what I make.
Frequently Asked Questions
Learn More About AI Agent Skills
Similar Skills
code-reviewer
Reviews your code for bugs, security vulnerabilities, logic errors, performance issues, and style violations. Organizes findings by severity and suggests fixes with code examples.
git-commit-writer
Writes conventional commit messages by analyzing your staged git changes. Detects commit type, scope, and breaking changes automatically.
readme-generator
Generates a complete, polished README.md by scanning your actual project structure, dependencies, and code.
env-doctor
Diagnoses why your project will not start. Checks runtime versions, dependencies, environment variables, databases, ports, and build artifacts systematically.