pre-mortem

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Pre-Mortem Risk Analysis Expert

事前风险分析专家

Overview

概述

A pre-mortem is a prospective hindsight exercise: imagine that your product has launched and failed, then work backward to identify why. This skill uses the Tiger / Paper Tiger / Elephant classification to categorize risks by type and urgency, ensuring launch-blocking issues are addressed before launch while avoiding wasted effort on unlikely risks.

事前风险分析（Pre-mortem）是一种前瞻性的事后反思练习：假设你的产品已经发布并失败了，然后反向推导找出失败原因。这项技能采用老虎/纸老虎/大象的分类方式，按类型和紧迫性对风险进行归类，确保在发布前解决阻碍发布的问题，同时避免在不太可能发生的风险上浪费精力。

When to Use

适用场景

Before committing significant resources to build (post-ideation, post-validation).
Before a major launch, migration, or architectural change.
When the team has "a bad feeling" they cannot articulate.
When stakeholder confidence is high and you need to stress-test it.

在投入大量资源进行开发前（构思完成后、验证完成后）。
在重大发布、迁移或架构变更前。
团队有难以言明的“不好的预感”时。
利益相关者信心过高，需要对其进行压力测试时。

Core Concept

核心概念

The Thought Experiment

思维实验

"It is 14 days after launch. The product has failed. What went wrong?"

This framing exploits a cognitive bias: people are better at explaining past events than predicting future ones. By placing the failure in the "past" (even fictitiously), participants generate more specific and honest risk assessments.

“现在是发布后的第14天，产品失败了。问题出在哪里？”

这种设定利用了一种认知偏差：人们更擅长解释过去的事件，而非预测未来。通过将失败设定在“过去”（即使是虚构的），参与者能生成更具体、更诚实的风险评估。

Risk Classification

风险分类

Tigers (Real Risks)

老虎（真实风险）

Tigers are real, evidence-backed risks that could cause serious harm if not addressed.

Characteristics:

Supported by data, past experience, or observable trends.
The team can describe a plausible failure scenario in concrete terms.
Ignoring them would be negligent.

Examples:

"Our authentication service went down 3 times last month. A launch-day outage is plausible."
"We have zero customers in the enterprise segment. Our sales team has no enterprise relationships."
"The EU regulation takes effect in 60 days. We have not started compliance work."

老虎是有证据支持的真实风险，如果不解决可能会造成严重损害。

特征：

有数据、过往经验或可观察趋势支持。
团队能具体描述合理的失败场景。
忽视这些风险属于失职。

示例：

“我们的认证服务上个月宕机了3次，发布当天出现故障是有可能的。”
“我们在企业客户领域没有任何用户，销售团队也没有企业客户关系。”
“欧盟法规将在60天后生效，我们还未开始合规工作。”

Paper Tigers (Look Scary but Unlikely)

纸老虎（看似可怕但可能性低）

Paper Tigers are risks that sound alarming but, on closer inspection, are unlikely or have minimal real impact.

Characteristics:

Based on hypothetical scenarios without supporting evidence.
The probability is very low, or the impact would be manageable.
Often raised because of general anxiety rather than specific knowledge.

Examples:

"A competitor might copy our feature" -- possible, but their execution timeline is 6-12 months.
"The server might not handle 100x traffic" -- but our realistic projection is 5x, with auto-scaling.
"Users might hate the new UI" -- but usability testing with 8 users showed high satisfaction.

纸老虎是听起来令人担忧，但仔细分析后发现可能性极低或实际影响很小的风险。

特征：

基于无证据支持的假设场景。
发生概率极低，或影响可控。
通常因普遍焦虑而非具体认知被提出。

示例：

“竞争对手可能会抄袭我们的功能”——有可能，但他们的执行周期需要6-12个月。
“服务器可能无法承受100倍流量”——但我们的实际预测是5倍流量，且有自动扩容机制。
“用户可能讨厌新UI”——但针对8名用户的可用性测试显示满意度很高。

Elephants (Unspoken Concerns)

大象（未被提及的顾虑）

Elephants are the risks everyone knows about but nobody talks about. They are the "elephant in the room."

Characteristics:

The team avoids discussing them due to politics, hierarchy, or discomfort.
Often involve people, process, or organizational issues rather than technical ones.
Frequently the actual cause of failure when projects fail.

Examples:

"The tech lead does not believe in this project and has been disengaged for weeks."
"The CEO's pet feature is driving the roadmap, but customers have not asked for it."
"We do not have a plan for what happens when the contractor's contract ends next month."

大象是所有人都知道但没人愿意谈论的风险，也就是“房间里的大象”。

特征：

团队因政治因素、层级关系或不适感而避免讨论。
通常涉及人员、流程或组织问题，而非技术问题。
往往是项目失败的实际原因。

示例：

“技术负责人不认可这个项目，已经好几周没有投入精力了。”
“CEO的偏好功能主导了路线图，但客户并没有提出相关需求。”
“我们没有针对下个月承包商合同到期后的情况制定计划。”

Tiger Urgency Classification

老虎风险的紧迫性分类

Once a risk is classified as a Tiger, assign an urgency level:

Urgency	Definition	Action Required
Launch-Blocking	If unresolved, the launch should not proceed.	Concrete mitigation plan, assigned owner, decision date before launch.
Fast-Follow	Must be addressed within 2 weeks after launch.	Documented plan, assigned owner, scheduled for first post-launch sprint.
Track	Should be monitored and addressed if it escalates.	Added to risk register, reviewed at regular cadence.

一旦风险被归类为老虎，需分配紧迫性等级：

紧迫性	定义	所需行动
阻碍发布	如果未解决，不应进行发布。	制定具体缓解计划，分配负责人，确定发布前的决策日期。
快速跟进	必须在发布后2周内解决。	记录计划，分配负责人，安排在发布后的第一个迭代中处理。
持续跟踪	应进行监控，若升级则需处理。	添加到风险登记册，定期回顾。

Methodology

实施方法

Phase 1: Set the Scene (5 minutes)

阶段1：设定场景（5分钟）

The facilitator reads this prompt to the group:

"Imagine it is 14 days after our launch. The product has failed. Users are not adopting it, key metrics are down, and leadership is asking what went wrong. Take 10 minutes to write down every reason you can think of for why we failed. Be specific. Be honest. Nothing is off limits."

Ground rules:

Anonymous contributions (sticky notes or digital equivalent).
No attribution, no blame, no judgment.
Quantity over quality in the first round.

主持人向团队宣读以下提示：

“想象现在是我们发布后的第14天，产品失败了。用户没有采用，关键指标下降，领导层在询问问题出在哪里。花10分钟写下你能想到的所有失败原因。要具体，要诚实，没有任何限制。”

基本规则：

匿名提交（便利贴或数字工具）。
不归属责任、不指责、不评判。
第一轮追求数量而非质量。

Phase 2: Generate Risks (10 minutes)

阶段2：生成风险（10分钟）

Each participant independently writes down failure scenarios. One risk per sticky note. Aim for 5-10 per person.

Prompts to stimulate thinking:

What technical system is most likely to break?
What customer objection have we not addressed?
What team dynamic could derail us?
What external event could change our assumptions?
What are we pretending is not a problem?
What decision are we avoiding?

每位参与者独立写下失败场景，每个风险写一张便利贴，每人目标5-10个。

启发思考的提示：

哪个技术系统最有可能崩溃？
我们未解决的客户异议是什么？
哪种团队动态可能会阻碍我们？
哪些外部事件可能会改变我们的假设？
我们在假装什么不是问题？
我们在回避什么决策？

Phase 3: Share and Cluster (15 minutes)

阶段3：分享与聚类（15分钟）

Read each risk aloud (without attribution).
Place on the board.
Group similar risks together.
Merge duplicates.

大声读出每个风险（不提及提交人）。
将风险贴在白板上。
将相似风险分组。
合并重复项。

Phase 4: Classify (15 minutes)

阶段4：分类（15分钟）

For each cluster, the group decides:

Classification	Criteria
Tiger	Supported by evidence. Plausible failure scenario.
Paper Tiger	Sounds scary but unlikely or low-impact on inspection.
Elephant	The room got quiet when this was read. People exchanged glances.

For each Tiger, assign urgency: Launch-Blocking, Fast-Follow, or Track.

针对每个风险组，团队决定分类：

分类	标准
老虎	有证据支持，有合理的失败场景。
纸老虎	看似可怕，但分析后发现可能性低或影响小。
大象	读到这个风险时房间变得安静，人们互相交换眼神。

针对每个老虎风险，分配紧迫性：阻碍发布、快速跟进或持续跟踪。

Phase 5: Mitigation Plans (15 minutes)

阶段5：缓解计划（15分钟）

For each Launch-Blocking Tiger, complete:

Field	Description
Risk	Clear description of the risk
Evidence	What data or experience supports this being a real risk?
Mitigation	Specific, concrete action to reduce the risk
Owner	Single person accountable
Decision Date	Date by which the mitigation must be complete or the launch decision revisited

针对每个阻碍发布的老虎风险，完成以下内容：

字段	描述
风险	清晰描述风险内容
证据	哪些数据或经验支持这是真实风险？
缓解措施	降低风险的具体、可行行动
负责人	唯一的负责人
决策日期	必须完成缓解措施或重新评估发布决策的日期

Phase 6: Address Elephants (10 minutes)

阶段6：处理大象风险（10分钟）

Elephants require a different approach than Tigers:

Acknowledge -- Name the elephant explicitly. "The team is concerned that..."
Assess -- Is this actually a Tiger in disguise? If so, reclassify.
Decide -- Either address it (assign an owner) or consciously accept it (document the acceptance and rationale).

大象风险的处理方法与老虎不同：

承认——明确指出大象风险：“团队担心……”
评估——这是否实际上是伪装的老虎风险？如果是，重新分类。
决策——要么解决它（分配负责人），要么有意识地接受它（记录接受理由）。

Python Tool: risk_categorizer.py

Python工具：risk_categorizer.py

Categorize and analyze risks using the CLI tool:

bash

undefined

使用CLI工具分类和分析风险：

bash

undefined

Run with demo data

使用演示数据运行

python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py --demo

Run with custom input

使用自定义输入运行

python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py input.json

Output as JSON

以JSON格式输出

python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py input.json --format json

undefined

python3 scripts/risk_categorizer.py input.json --format json

undefined

Input Format

输入格式

json

{
  "risks": [
    {
      "description": "Authentication service has had 3 outages in the last month",
      "category": "tiger",
      "evidence": "Incident reports from last 30 days",
      "urgency": "launch_blocking"
    }
  ]
}

json

{
  "risks": [
    {
      "description": "Authentication service has had 3 outages in the last month",
      "category": "tiger",
      "evidence": "Incident reports from last 30 days",
      "urgency": "launch_blocking"
    }
  ]
}

Output

输出

Risk distribution summary, action plans for launch-blocking tigers, and flags for elephants that may need investigation.

See

scripts/risk_categorizer.py

for full documentation.

风险分布摘要、阻碍发布的老虎风险的行动计划，以及可能需要调查的大象风险标记。

详见

scripts/risk_categorizer.py

的完整文档。

Output Format

输出格式

Pre-Mortem Summary

事前风险分析摘要

Pre-Mortem Analysis: [Product/Feature Name]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Participants: [list]
Total risks identified: N
  - Tigers: X (Launch-Blocking: A, Fast-Follow: B, Track: C)
  - Paper Tigers: Y
  - Elephants: Z

事前风险分析：[产品/功能名称]
日期：YYYY-MM-DD
参与者：[列表]
识别出的总风险数：N
  - 老虎：X（阻碍发布：A，快速跟进：B，持续跟踪：C）
  - 纸老虎：Y
  - 大象：Z

Risk Registry

风险登记册

#	Risk	Category	Urgency	Evidence	Mitigation	Owner	Decision Date
1	...	Tiger	Launch-Blocking	...	...	...	...
2	...	Tiger	Fast-Follow	...	...	...	...
3	...	Paper Tiger	--	...	--	--	--
4	...	Elephant	TBD	...	...	...	...

Use

assets/pre_mortem_template.md

for the full document template.

序号	风险	分类	紧迫性	证据	缓解措施	负责人	决策日期
1	...	老虎	阻碍发布	...	...	...	...
2	...	老虎	快速跟进	...	...	...	...
3	...	纸老虎	--	...	--	--	--
4	...	大象	TBD	...	...	...	...

完整文档模板请使用

assets/pre_mortem_template.md

。

Integration with Other Discovery Skills

与其他探索技能的集成

Use after
```
brainstorm-ideas/
```
and
```
brainstorm-experiments/
```
-- pre-mortem is the final check before committing to build.
Feed launch-blocking Tiger mitigations back into
```
identify-assumptions/
```
if they surface new assumptions.
Elephants often reveal assumptions that the team has been avoiding.

在
```
brainstorm-ideas/
```
和
```
brainstorm-experiments/
```
之后使用——事前风险分析是投入开发前的最终检查。
如果阻碍发布的老虎风险缓解措施揭示了新假设，将其反馈到
```
identify-assumptions/
```
中。
大象风险通常会揭示团队一直回避的假设。

Troubleshooting

故障排除

Symptom	Likely Cause	Resolution
Team generates mostly paper tigers	Risk aversion or surface-level thinking; team not fully immersing in the failure scenario	Re-read the thought experiment prompt slowly; extend silent writing time from 10 to 15 minutes; use specific prompts
No elephants surfaced	Psychological safety too low, or facilitator is a manager creating power dynamics	Use anonymous contribution (sticky notes or digital tools); consider an external facilitator; separate session from performance reviews
All risks classified as tigers	Team lacks calibration on what constitutes real evidence vs. anxiety	Require concrete evidence for each tiger; if evidence is hypothetical, reclassify as paper tiger
Elephant escalation check flags too many false positives	ESCALATION_KEYWORDS list is broad, matching common words in non-critical contexts	Review matched keywords in output; refine escalation thresholds; use the recommendation as a prompt, not a verdict
Launch-blocking tigers have no owners assigned	Pre-mortem session ended without Phase 5 mitigation planning	Always reserve 15 minutes for mitigation plans; do not skip Phase 5 even if the session runs long
Validation errors on input JSON	Missing required fields ( `description` , `evidence` , `category` ) or invalid urgency for tigers	Check that every tiger has `urgency` set to one of: `launch_blocking` , `fast_follow` , `track`

症状	可能原因	解决方案
团队生成的大多是纸老虎风险	风险规避或表面思考；团队未完全代入失败场景	缓慢重读思维实验提示；将静默写作时间从10分钟延长到15分钟；使用具体提示
未浮现大象风险	心理安全感太低，或主持人是经理导致权力动态问题	使用匿名提交（便利贴或数字工具）；考虑外部主持人；将会议与绩效评估分开
所有风险都被归类为老虎	团队对真实证据与焦虑的界定缺乏校准	要求每个老虎风险都有具体证据；如果证据是假设的，重新归类为纸老虎
大象风险升级检查标记太多误报	ESCALATION_KEYWORDS列表范围过宽，匹配了非关键场景中的常见词汇	查看输出中匹配的关键词；优化升级阈值；将建议作为提示而非结论
阻碍发布的老虎风险未分配负责人	事前风险分析会议未完成阶段5的缓解计划制定	始终预留15分钟用于缓解计划制定；即使会议超时也不要跳过阶段5
输入JSON验证错误	缺少必填字段（ `description` 、 `evidence` 、 `category` ）或老虎风险的紧迫性无效	确保每个老虎风险的 `urgency` 设置为以下值之一： `launch_blocking` 、 `fast_follow` 、 `track`

Success Criteria

成功标准

Pre-mortem conducted before every major launch, migration, or significant resource commitment
At least 5-10 risks generated per person during the silent writing phase
Risk distribution includes all three categories (not all tigers, not all paper tigers)
Every launch-blocking tiger has an assigned owner, concrete mitigation plan, and decision date
Elephants are explicitly named and either addressed or consciously accepted with documented rationale
Pre-mortem findings are reviewed against actual outcomes post-launch to calibrate future sessions
Session duration stays within 60-90 minutes total across all 6 phases

在每次重大发布、迁移或重大资源投入前进行事前风险分析
静默写作阶段每人至少生成5-10个风险
风险分布包含所有三类（并非全是老虎，也并非全是纸老虎）
每个阻碍发布的老虎风险都有指定负责人、具体缓解计划和决策日期
大象风险被明确指出，要么得到解决，要么被有意识地接受并记录理由
发布后对照实际结果回顾事前风险分析结果，以校准未来的会议
所有6个阶段的总会议时长控制在60-90分钟内

Scope & Limitations

范围与限制

In Scope:

Prospective hindsight exercises using the "14 days after launch failure" framing
Tiger / Paper Tiger / Elephant risk classification with urgency levels
Automated elephant escalation detection based on keyword signals
Risk registry generation with category distribution and action plans
Facilitation methodology for both in-person and remote teams

Out of Scope:

Ongoing risk management and tracking (see
```
senior-pm/risk_matrix_analyzer.py
```
)
Quantitative risk analysis with probability/impact scoring (see
```
senior-pm/
```
skill)
Product discovery and hypothesis validation (see
```
brainstorm-experiments/
```
)
Technical architecture risk assessment (see
```
engineering/
```
skills)

Important Caveats:

Pre-mortems are most effective with 4-8 participants. Fewer than 4 limits perspective diversity; more than 10 makes classification unwieldy.
The elephant escalation keyword check is a heuristic. It catches common patterns but cannot detect all political or organizational risks.
Pre-mortems complement, not replace, assumption mapping. Use
```
identify-assumptions/
```
for systematic risk categorization and
```
pre-mortem/
```
for surfacing unspoken concerns.
Psychological safety is a prerequisite. If the team cannot speak honestly, the pre-mortem will produce sanitized results.

包含范围：

采用“发布后14天失败”设定的前瞻性事后反思练习
带有紧迫性等级的老虎/纸老虎/大象风险分类
基于关键词信号的自动大象风险升级检测
包含分类分布和行动计划的风险登记册生成
面向线下和远程团队的主持方法

排除范围：

持续风险管理与跟踪（详见
```
senior-pm/risk_matrix_analyzer.py
```
）
带有概率/影响评分的定量风险分析（详见
```
senior-pm/
```
技能）
产品探索与假设验证（详见
```
brainstorm-experiments/
```
）
技术架构风险评估（详见
```
engineering/
```
技能）

重要注意事项：

事前风险分析在4-8名参与者时最有效。少于4人会限制视角多样性；多于10人会使分类工作难以开展。
大象风险升级关键词检查是一种启发式方法，它能捕捉常见模式，但无法检测所有政治或组织风险。
事前风险分析是对假设映射的补充，而非替代。使用
```
identify-assumptions/
```
进行系统性风险分类，使用
```
pre-mortem/
```
揭示未被提及的顾虑。
心理安全感是前提条件。如果团队无法诚实发言，事前风险分析将产生经过粉饰的结果。

Integration Points

集成点

Integration	Direction	Description
`brainstorm-ideas/`	Receives from	Ideas that passed initial validation are subject to pre-mortem before full build
`brainstorm-experiments/`	Receives from	Post-experiment, pre-mortem stress-tests the build decision
`identify-assumptions/`	Bidirectional	Launch-blocking tigers may surface new assumptions; elephants often reveal avoided assumptions
`execution/create-prd/`	Feeds into	Tiger mitigations become PRD risk sections and assumption validation plans
`senior-pm/`	Feeds into	Launch-blocking tigers escalate into portfolio risk registers via `risk_matrix_analyzer.py`
`scrum-master/`	Feeds into	Fast-follow tigers become sprint backlog items with mitigation-focused stories

集成项	方向	描述
`brainstorm-ideas/`	接收	通过初始验证的想法在全面开发前需进行事前风险分析
`brainstorm-experiments/`	接收	实验完成后，事前风险分析对开发决策进行压力测试
`identify-assumptions/`	双向	阻碍发布的老虎风险可能揭示新假设；大象风险通常会揭示被回避的假设
`execution/create-prd/`	输出	老虎风险缓解措施成为PRD的风险部分和假设验证计划
`senior-pm/`	输出	阻碍发布的老虎风险通过 `risk_matrix_analyzer.py` 升级到组合风险登记册
`scrum-master/`	输出	快速跟进的老虎风险成为迭代待办事项中的缓解导向故事

Tool Reference

工具参考

risk_categorizer.py

Categorizes pre-mortem risks as Tigers, Paper Tigers, or Elephants. Generates action plans for launch-blocking tigers and flags elephants with escalation signals.

Flag	Type	Default	Description
`input_file`	positional	(optional)	Path to JSON file with risks array
`--demo`	flag	off	Run with built-in sample data (7 risks across all categories)
`--format`	choice	`text`	Output format: `text` or `json`

Input fields per risk:

```
description
```
(required): Clear description of the risk scenario
```
category
```
(required): One of
```
tiger
```
,
```
paper_tiger
```
,
```
elephant
```
```
evidence
```
(required): Supporting data or observations
```
urgency
```
(required for tigers): One of
```
launch_blocking
```
,
```
fast_follow
```
,
```
track
```

将事前风险分析的风险归类为老虎、纸老虎或大象。生成阻碍发布的老虎风险的行动计划，并标记带有升级信号的大象风险。

标记	类型	默认值	描述
`input_file`	位置参数	（可选）	包含风险数组的JSON文件路径
`--demo`	标记	关闭	使用内置示例数据运行（涵盖所有类别的7个风险）
`--format`	选项	`text`	输出格式： `text` 或 `json`

每个风险的输入字段：

```
description
```
（必填）：风险场景的清晰描述
```
category
```
（必填）：
```
tiger
```
、
```
paper_tiger
```
、
```
elephant
```
之一
```
evidence
```
（必填）：支持数据或观察结果
```
urgency
```
（老虎风险必填）：
```
launch_blocking
```
、
```
fast_follow
```
、
```
track
```
之一

References

参考资料

Gary Klein, "Performing a Project Pre-Mortem," Harvard Business Review (2007)
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011) -- prospective hindsight
Chip Heath & Dan Heath, Decisive (2013) -- decision-making under uncertainty
Amy Edmondson, The Fearless Organization (2018) -- psychological safety for surfacing elephants

Gary Klein，《执行项目事前风险分析》，《哈佛商业评论》（2007）
Daniel Kahneman，《思考，快与慢》（2011）——前瞻性事后反思
Chip Heath & Dan Heath，《决断力》（2013）——不确定性下的决策
Amy Edmondson，《无畏的组织》（2018）——揭示大象风险所需的心理安全感