| name | pre-mortem |
| description | Guide prospective hindsight analysis to identify project risks before failure occurs. Teams imagine the project has failed spectacularly, then work backward to identify causes. Increases risk identification by 30% compared to traditional planning. |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | [object Object] |
Pre-Mortem Risk Identification
When this skill activates, you become a pre-mortem facilitator. Your role is to guide users through prospective hindsight analysis, helping them identify project risks by imagining failure has already occurred.
Triggers
Activate when the user:
- "Run a pre-mortem on..."
- "What could cause this project to fail?"
- "Identify project risks for..."
- "What could go wrong with..."
- "Risk identification for..."
- "Pre-mortem analysis"
Quick Reference
| Phase | Duration | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Brief | 2-3 min | Project context documented |
| 2. Failure Announcement | 30 sec | Mindset shift established |
| 3. Independent Analysis | 3-5 min | Individual failure reasons |
| 4. Round-Robin Collection | 5-10 min | Consolidated failure list |
| 5. Review and Mitigate | 10-15 min | Risk inventory with mitigations |
Why Pre-Mortem Works
Research by Gary Klein demonstrates that prospective hindsight (imagining an event has already occurred) increases the ability to identify reasons for outcomes by 30%.
Key psychological benefits:
- Reduces "damn-the-torpedoes" attitude - Acknowledging failure is possible
- Creates psychological safety - Dissenters can voice concerns as analysis, not criticism
- Surfaces hidden knowledge - People share what they know but fear saying
- Catches blind spots early - Before commitment and sunk costs
Process
Phase 1: Project Brief (2-3 minutes)
Input Required:
- Project name and objective
- Timeline and key milestones
- Team composition (if team context)
- Success criteria
Actions:
- Document the project scope clearly
- Identify key stakeholders
- Note any constraints or dependencies
- Confirm understanding with user
Output: Project context document
Phase 2: Failure Announcement (30 seconds)
The critical mindset shift.
Announce to the user (or team):
"The project has failed. It is [timeline endpoint]. The project did not just miss its goals, it failed spectacularly. Your task now is to identify all the reasons why it failed."
Important: Use past tense. The failure has already happened. This is not speculation about what "might" happen; it "did" happen.
Phase 3: Independent Analysis (3-5 minutes)
For individual context:
- User writes down 5-10 reasons why the project failed
- No filtering or evaluation yet
- Include both obvious and "unlikely" causes
- Consider technical, human, organizational, and external factors
For team context:
- Each person writes independently
- No discussion or sharing yet
- Silent reflection maximizes diversity of thought
Prompt the user:
"Write down every reason you can think of for why this project failed. Include causes you consider unlikely. Do not filter yourself. You have 3-5 minutes."
Output: Raw list of failure reasons
Phase 4: Round-Robin Collection (5-10 minutes)
For individual context:
- Review each failure reason
- Group by category (see Categories below)
- No evaluation yet, just collection
For team context:
- Go around the room, each person shares ONE reason
- Continue rounds until all reasons exhausted
- Record without discussion or debate
- No "that won't happen" or "we already thought of that"
Categories for grouping:
- Technical - Technology, architecture, implementation
- People - Skills, availability, communication
- Process - Methodology, workflow, coordination
- Organizational - Politics, priorities, resources
- External - Market, competitors, regulations, dependencies
- Unknown Unknowns - Black swan events, assumptions
Output: Categorized failure reasons
Phase 5: Review and Mitigate (10-15 minutes)
For each failure reason:
Assess likelihood (1-5 scale)
- 1: Very unlikely
- 2: Unlikely
- 3: Possible
- 4: Likely
- 5: Very likely
Assess impact (1-5 scale)
- 1: Minor inconvenience
- 2: Delays
- 3: Significant setback
- 4: Major failure
- 5: Project-killing
Calculate risk score: Likelihood x Impact
Identify mitigation strategies:
- Prevention: How to stop it from happening
- Detection: How to know early if it is happening
- Response: What to do if it happens
Assign ownership (if team context)
Prioritization:
- Risk score 15-25: Critical, address immediately
- Risk score 8-14: High, plan mitigation
- Risk score 4-7: Medium, monitor
- Risk score 1-3: Low, accept or defer
Output: Complete risk inventory (see template)
Output Template
Generate the risk inventory using this structure:
# Pre-Mortem Risk Inventory
**Project:** [Name]
**Date:** [Date]
**Participants:** [Names or "Individual Analysis"]
## Project Context
- **Objective:** [What success looks like]
- **Timeline:** [Start to end]
- **Key Dependencies:** [Critical external factors]
## Risk Summary
| Priority | Count | Top Risk |
|----------|-------|----------|
| Critical | N | [Highest scoring risk] |
| High | N | [Second highest category risk] |
| Medium | N | |
| Low | N | |
## Critical Risks (Score 15-25)
### R1: [Risk Name]
- **Category:** [Technical/People/Process/Organizational/External]
- **Failure Scenario:** [How this causes project failure]
- **Likelihood:** [1-5] | **Impact:** [1-5] | **Score:** [L x I]
- **Root Cause:** [Why this might happen]
- **Mitigation:**
- Prevention: [How to avoid]
- Detection: [Early warning signs]
- Response: [Contingency plan]
- **Owner:** [Person responsible]
- **Status:** [Open/Mitigating/Accepted]
[Repeat for each critical risk]
## High Risks (Score 8-14)
[Same structure as Critical]
## Medium Risks (Score 4-7)
[Abbreviated: Name, Category, Score, One-line mitigation]
## Low Risks (Score 1-3)
[List only: Name and score]
## Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due Date | Risk Addressed |
|--------|-------|----------|----------------|
| [Specific action] | [Name] | [Date] | R1, R3 |
## Review Schedule
- **Next review:** [Date]
- **Review frequency:** [Weekly/Bi-weekly/Monthly]
Scripts
pre-mortem.py
Validates risk inventory completeness and calculates aggregate statistics.
python3 .claude/skills/pre-mortem/scripts/pre-mortem.py \
--inventory-path <path-to-risk-inventory.md> \
--validate
Exit Codes:
- 0: Valid inventory with all required fields
- 1: Invalid arguments
- 10: Validation failed (missing required sections)
Anti-Patterns
| Avoid | Why | Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Skipping Phase 2 | Mindset shift is critical for effectiveness | Always announce failure explicitly |
| Allowing discussion during Phase 3 | Reduces diversity of thought | Enforce silent writing |
| Filtering "unlikely" causes | Miss black swan events | Include all causes, prioritize later |
| Stopping at identification | Risk without mitigation is incomplete | Always complete Phase 5 |
| One-time exercise | Projects evolve, new risks emerge | Schedule periodic reviews |
Facilitation Tips
For team settings:
- Emphasize no blame or criticism
- Senior members speak last in round-robin
- Celebrate thorough risk identification
- Treat skeptics as valuable, not negative
For individual use:
- Role-play multiple perspectives (developer, user, manager)
- Challenge your own assumptions explicitly
- Consider "what would my critics say?"
Extension Points
- Custom Categories: Add domain-specific risk categories
- Risk Templates: Pre-built risks for common project types
- Integration: Link to issue trackers for action item follow-up
- Quantification: Add financial impact estimation
Related Skills
| Skill | Relationship |
|---|---|
| decision-critic | Post-decision validation (pre-mortem is pre-decision) |
| planner | Use pre-mortem output to inform planning |
| architect | Technical risks feed into ADR considerations |
References
- Klein, G. (2007). "Performing a Project Premortem." Harvard Business Review.
- Mitchell, D. J., et al. (1989). "Back to the Future: Temporal Perspective in the Explanation of Events." Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.