The Pre Mortem skill implements the Klein 1989 pre-mortem method, which guides teams to envision project failures and identify potential causes. This skill provides a structured approach that prevents the common pitfall of merely naming risks during meetings. It outlines a five-phase procedure that includes pre-mortem framing, generation of failure modes, a behavioral attractor test, probability/impact assessments, and pre-commitment design. Teams are required to complete specific steps in each phase, ensuring that failure modes are addressed effectively. The behavioral attractor test helps teams recognize patterns of structural failure and aims to provide in-context suppression anchors to prevent repeated failures. Additionally, the skill incorporates an enforcement layer for pre-commitments, mandating clarity on owners, witnesses, and conditions for renegotiation. A worked example demonstrates the application of this skill in a B2B SaaS launch scenario, while the inclusion of a META-REFLECTION check ensures thorough output discipline. Anti-pattern sections help teams identify and avoid common pitfalls in the pre-mortem process. This skill caters to founders, project managers, and tech leads focused on high-stakes decisions and collaborative planning tools with structured procedural needs.

Use cases

Execute a structured pre-launch review for a new product.

Facilitate team discussions on potential project failure modes to improve planning accuracy.

Implement a disciplined approach in risk assessment sessions for critical projects.

Enhance decision-making in architecture discussions with clear pre-commitment devices.

Generate project-specific failure mode analysis to prevent generic risk assessments.

Apply a systematic method to evaluate risks in B2B scenarios through worked examples.

When to use it

Use when conducting a pre-launch review to identify potential project threats.

Ideal for sessions focused on team accountability during project phases.

Appropriate for projects with high risks where consequences of failure are significant.

When teams require a structured method to assess and report risks and commitments.

When previous risk assessments have failed to result in actionable outcomes.

When not to use it

Not suitable for low-stakes projects where detailed risk analysis may not be necessary.

Should not be used in situations where quick decisions are needed without extensive discussion.

Inappropriate for teams that lack the discipline to follow structured procedures.

Not designed for projects that do not experience significant risk or uncertainty.

Avoid if teams are unwilling to engage in self-reflection and accountability measures.