スキル一覧に戻る

after-action-report

rampstackco
更新日 Yesterday
1 閲覧
239
27
239
GitHubで表示
その他general

について

このスキルは、インシデント、ローンチ、またはプロジェクトの構造化された事後検証を実施し、タイムライン、根本原因、および学んだ教訓を記録します。ポストモーテム、レトロスペクティブ、RCAといった用語で起動され、機能リリース後やインシデント解決後に最適です。このプロセスは、単なる文書化ではなく、実践的な改善策の創出に重点を置いています。

クイックインストール

Claude Code

推奨
メイン
npx skills add rampstackco/claude-skills -a claude-code
プラグインコマンド代替
/plugin add https://github.com/rampstackco/claude-skills
Git クローン代替
git clone https://github.com/rampstackco/claude-skills.git ~/.claude/skills/after-action-report

このコマンドをClaude Codeにコピー&ペーストしてスキルをインストールします

ドキュメント

After-Action Report

Run a structured retrospective on a launch, incident, or completed project. Produce actionable lessons, not just a document.

This skill is for after-the-fact analysis. For active incident response, use incident-response. For planning launches, use launch-runbook.


When to use

  • After any incident (any severity)
  • After every major launch
  • At the end of a project (sprint retro, quarterly retro, project closeout)
  • When a recurring issue has happened enough times to demand investigation
  • When a decision didn't work out and the team wants to learn

When NOT to use

  • During an active incident (use incident-response)
  • For pre-launch planning (use launch-runbook)
  • For one-off bug fixes that don't merit broad analysis

Required inputs

  • The event being analyzed (incident, launch, project)
  • A timeline reconstructed from logs, chat, tickets
  • Participant accounts of what they observed and did
  • Outcomes and impact (what actually happened to users, the business)

The framework: blameless analysis

The most important principle: blameless. Without it, retrospectives produce hidden information and theatrical lessons rather than real ones.

What blameless means

  • Focus on systems, not individuals
  • Assume everyone made reasonable decisions given what they knew at the time
  • The question is "why was this decision reasonable to make?" not "who screwed up?"
  • Fixing the system means the next person in that situation succeeds where this person didn't

What blameless does not mean

  • No accountability (action items still have owners)
  • No hard truths (sometimes the system is broken in obvious ways)
  • No standards (some patterns of failure are individual, not systemic)
  • No discomfort (real reflection is uncomfortable)

The framework: 6 sections

A complete AAR covers six sections.

1. Summary

A 2 to 3 paragraph overview. Captures:

  • What happened
  • Impact (users, business, time)
  • Root cause (in plain language)
  • Top action items

This is what executives read. Anyone who reads only this section should leave with the most important information.

2. Timeline

A reconstructed timeline of events.

For incidents:

  • T-0: Detection
  • T+X: Acknowledgment
  • T+Y: Severity assessed, IC assigned
  • T+Z: Investigation began
  • ... mitigation, communication, resolution events
  • T+N: Resolution declared

For launches:

  • Pre-launch decisions and milestones
  • Launch day events
  • Post-launch monitoring observations

For projects:

  • Major milestones, decisions, pivots
  • Both planned and emergent

The timeline is the source of truth. Disagreements about what happened get resolved here.

3. Root cause analysis

What caused this, in plain language.

Use one or both of:

Five whys. Start with the surface symptom. Ask "why?" Repeat 5 times (or until you reach a true root). Each "why" should yield a substantive answer, not a tautology.

Example:

  • Why did the site go down? Database connection pool exhausted.
  • Why was the pool exhausted? Background job opened too many connections.
  • Why did the background job open too many connections? Connection cleanup code didn't run on errors.
  • Why didn't cleanup run on errors? Original code review didn't cover error paths.
  • Why didn't the review cover error paths? No checklist for error handling in our review process.

The fifth why often reveals the system fix. In this case: improve the review process.

Causal chain. Multiple contributing factors that combined.

  • Factor 1: Background job opened too many connections (technical)
  • Factor 2: Connection limit was set too low for actual traffic (configuration)
  • Factor 3: No alert on connection pool saturation (monitoring)
  • Factor 4: Recent traffic doubled without infra capacity review (process)

No single fix addresses the incident. Multiple gaps need attention.

4. Contributing factors

Factors that didn't cause the event but made it worse, or removed safety nets that would have caught it.

  • Monitoring gaps
  • Documentation gaps
  • Process gaps
  • Tooling gaps
  • Knowledge gaps

A "would have been caught earlier if..." factor.

5. What went well

Real lessons require capturing successes, not just failures.

  • What detection worked?
  • What response worked?
  • What decisions were good?
  • What tools or processes performed as expected?

This is not consolation. It's calibration. Things that worked here should be reinforced and replicated.

6. Action items

Specific, owned, dated.

ActionOwnerDueType
Add alert on connection pool saturation[name][date]Monitoring
Add error handling checklist to PR template[name][date]Process
Audit other background jobs for similar issue[name][date]Code

Action item criteria:

  • Specific. "Improve monitoring" is not actionable. "Add alert on connection pool saturation, threshold 80%, page on-call" is.
  • Owned. A name. Not "the team."
  • Dated. A real date. Not "soon."
  • Sized. Roughly hours, days, or weeks of effort.
  • Closeable. Definition of done is clear.

Action items that don't close in their committed timeframe should re-surface in the next AAR. Patterns of unclosed actions point to deeper organizational issues.


Workflow

1. Schedule the AAR

Within 1 to 2 weeks of the event. Long enough that emotions cooled and facts gathered. Short enough that memories are fresh.

For incidents: pre-decided in the response procedure. For launches: schedule on the runbook. For projects: schedule at project closeout.

2. Gather inputs

Before the meeting:

  • Reconstructed timeline (often the scribe's notes if there was one)
  • Logs, chat transcripts, tickets, incident updates
  • Individual accounts from each participant (written, before the meeting)
  • Impact data (users affected, duration, revenue impact, etc.)

3. Run the meeting

Typical agenda (60 to 90 minutes):

  • Read the summary as drafted (5 min)
  • Walk the timeline together. Add corrections. Resolve disagreements. (20 to 30 min)
  • Discuss root cause. Use five whys or causal chain. (15 to 20 min)
  • Discuss contributing factors. (10 min)
  • Discuss what went well. (10 min)
  • Identify action items. Owners and dates. (10 min)

A facilitator runs the meeting. Often the IC for an incident, or a project lead for a project. The facilitator is not the scribe.

4. Write the document

Within a few days of the meeting. The full AAR includes all 6 sections.

5. Distribute

Internal: post in a known location. Make searchable. Reference in onboarding.

For high-severity incidents: external summary may be appropriate (status page, customer email, public blog).

6. Track action items

Every action item should be tracked to closure. The next AAR re-surfaces unclosed ones.


Failure patterns

  • Skipping the AAR for "small" incidents. Patterns get missed.
  • Naming and shaming. Real lessons get hidden when people fear blame.
  • Generic action items. "Improve testing" instead of specific testing change.
  • Action items that never close. Filed, forgotten. Same incident recurs.
  • Theater retrospectives. Going through the motions without genuine reflection.
  • Skipping "what went well." Misses calibration on what's working.
  • Blame externalized. "Our vendor failed." OK, what's our system for vendor risk?
  • Single-person AAR. One person writes the whole thing. Misses other perspectives.
  • AAR only for failures. Successful launches deserve AARs too. Lessons from success are valuable.
  • Long delays. Memories fade. Conversations cool. Get it done within 2 weeks.

Output format

A markdown document at aar-[date]-[event-name].md.

Structure:

# AAR: [Event name]

**Date of event:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**AAR date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Severity / scope:** [SEV-1 / Major launch / Project closeout]
**Facilitator:** [Name]
**Participants:** [Names]

## Summary
[2 to 3 paragraphs]

## Impact
- Users affected: [number, segment]
- Duration: [time]
- Revenue / business impact: [if applicable]

## Timeline
[Timestamped events]

## Root cause analysis
[Five whys or causal chain]

## Contributing factors
[List]

## What went well
[List]

## Action items
| Action | Owner | Due | Type | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | |

## Lessons
[Reflections that don't fit elsewhere. Often the most quotable section.]

Reference files

GitHub リポジトリ

rampstackco/claude-skills
パス: skills/after-action-report
0
agent-skillsai-agentsanthropicclaudeclaude-aiclaude-code

関連スキル

security-baseline

その他

セキュリティベースラインスキルは、開発者が必須のウェブセキュリティ設定を確立し監査することを支援します。HTTPS/TLS設定、セキュリティヘッダー、CSP、シークレット管理、および公開前の強化策に関するガイダンスを提供します。コンプライアンスレビュー、脆弱性評価、定期的なセキュリティ監査にご利用ください。

スキルを見る

monitoring-and-alerting

その他

このスキルは、開発者が監視システムを設計・実装する際に役立ち、SLOの定義、稼働時間チェック、エラー追跡を網羅します。具体的なアラート設定、オンコールローテーションの構築、アラート疲労の解消についてもガイドします。可観測性の確立時や、インシデントから監視のギャップが明らかになった際にご活用ください。

スキルを見る

email-deliverability

その他

このClaude Skillは、SPF、DKIM、DMARCなどの認証プロトコルの実装とトラブルシューティングを通じて、開発者がメールが受信トレイに確実に届くよう支援します。スパム判定の問題診断、送信者レピュテーションの監視、ドメインのスプーフィング対策強化をサポートします。メールシステムの設定時や、マーケティング・トランザクションメールがユーザーに届かない場合にご利用ください。

スキルを見る

domain-strategy

その他

このスキルは、開発者がドメインポートフォリオの計画と管理、DNSアーキテクチャ、リダイレクト戦略を支援します。レジストラの選択、wwwとapexの設定、サブドメインの計画、マルチサイト構成などの意思決定をサポートします。新規サイトの立ち上げ時や既存のドメイン構造の最適化時にご活用ください。

スキルを見る