Use Incident Postmortem Prover with your AI.
Connect your account once and let the AI you already use work with it, without building another integration. Most postmortems fail: vague timelines, symptom-level root causes, and action items with no owner. This capability forces SRE-grade rigor: minute-by-minute timeline r
Developed, maintained, and hosted by Vinkius.
MCP VERIFIED · PRODUCTION READY · VINKIUS GUARANTEED
Waiting for input…
Works with modern AI clients that support MCP, including ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, and more.
Complete set · 1 capability
The complete Incident Postmortem Prover capability set.
These are the exact actions your AI can choose when you ask it to work with Incident Postmortem Prover.
01
1 capability in this set.
Part of 1 available through Incident Postmortem Prover.
- 01
Validate incident postmortem
A postmortem that stops at "the server crashed" is a narrative, not an investigation. You must: (1) reconstruct the TIMELINE minute-by-minute in UTC. every alert, page, action, decision, and escalation. If you cannot account for a 5-minute gap, that gap hides a process failure, (2) apply 5 WHYS until you reach an organizational or systemic root. "server crashed" is Why #0. Why crashed? Why THAT? Why THAT? Keep going until you reach a process, incentive, or cultural root cause, (3) SEPARATE root cause from contributing factors. root cause ENABLES, factors AMPLIFY. "Multiple causes" is a dodge. There is one enabling cause and several amplifiers, (4) write ACTION ITEMS with ODAS: [Owner] [Deadline] [Specific Action] [Success Metric]. "Add monitoring" will be forgotten. An owner, a date, an action, and a measurable success criterion will not, (5) cross-reference INCIDENT HISTORY for recurrence patterns. same service, same cause type, same window, same team. "First time" requires evidence. If rejected, your postmortem is a narrative, not an investigation. Structured reflection capability for rigorous incident postmortem analysis. forces minute-by-minute timeline reconstruction, 5 Whys chain to systemic root cause, root cause isolation from contributing factors, owner-deadline-metric action items, and recurrence pattern analysis. Catches Timeline Incomplete (narrative summary instead of minute-by-minute reconstruction. "the site went down for about an hour" is a story. "14:32 UTC. PagerDuty alert fires. 14:33. @bob paged. 14:35. Joins #incident-123. 14:38. Identifies crash loop in payment-svc. 14:42. Rollback v2.4.1→v2.4.0 initiated. 14:45. Service recovered" is an investigation. Every minute unaccounted for is a gap in the investigation), Shallow Whys (stopping at the surface symptom instead of reaching systemic root cause. "the server crashed" is Why #0, not a root cause. Why crashed? → OOM. Why OOM? → Memory leak. Why leak? → No integration test on payment→inventory path. Why no test? → Testing culture prioritizes unit tests. Why? → Team incentives reward feature velocity. THAT is a root cause. an organizational incentive structure), Root Cause Confused (conflating root cause with contributing factors. "multiple causes" is a dodge. There is ONE root cause that ENABLES the incident. Contributing factors AMPLIFY but do not cause. Friday deploy is a contributing factor. it did not cause the bug, it reduced staffing to catch it. Root cause: no integration test. Contributing: Friday deploy, high alert threshold, outdated runbook), Actions Vague ("add monitoring" without owner, deadline, or success metric. "improve testing" is a wish, not an action item. "[@alice] [By: 2024-03-15] [Deploy connection pool metric alert at 80% threshold] [Success: alert fires in staging within 30 seconds of threshold breach]" is actionable. Every action item without ODAS (Owner-Deadline-Action-Success) will be forgotten), and Pattern Ignored (treating every incident as unique without cross-referencing history. "first time this happened" requires evidence from the incident database. Same service in 6 months? Same root cause type? Same deploy window? Same team? If no incident database exists, that IS the first action item). Call once per incident postmortem or root cause analysis
Observed, not estimated
818ms average. Fast in production.
Incident Postmortem Prover is checked daily against the live service.
- Fastest day
- 673ms
- Slowest day
- 1072ms
- 14-day trend
- Slowing+25%
Connect your client
One URL. Every client.
Activate the Connector, copy your link, and paste it into the client you already use. 1 capability arrives ready to run.
Preview access · not provider authentication
The vk_preview_* token belongs to Vinkius preview infrastructure. It lets Claude discover and display the capabilities of Incident Postmortem Prover, so you can see the experience inside your AI.
It does not authenticate your account with Incident Postmortem Prover. Actions requiring credentials or live account data may not run until you activate the Connector and authorize the service.
Incident Postmortem Prover Connector
You're all set. Choose your MCP client and follow the setup instructions.
https://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_KJycaUpjREM4styaMUmvRCfmlrKrfVMXPwF6uM9b/mcpClaude Desktop
Follow the steps below to connect in seconds.
- 1In Claude Desktop, open Settings → Connectors.
- 2Click “Add custom connector” and paste the connector link above as the remote MCP server URL.
- 3Click Add and start a new chat — Incident Postmortem Prover capabilities are ready to use.
{
"mcpServers": {
"incident-postmortem-prover-mcp": {
"url": "https://edge.vinkius.com/vk_preview_KJycaUpjREM4styaMUmvRCfmlrKrfVMXPwF6uM9b/mcp"
}
}
}
Claude
ChatGPT
Cursor
VS Code
Windsurf
Claude Code
JetBrains
Cline
Step-by-step instructions for each client are in the guide. How to connect
FAQ
Questions Incident Postmortem Prover owners ask.
- 01
What makes a timeline 'complete'?
Minute-by-minute entries from first alert to full resolution. Each entry: [HH:MM] [Actor] [Action] [Outcome]. 'Around 3 PM' is rejected. '15:03. PagerDuty alert fired for p95 > 2s on /api/orders' is accepted.
- 02
How deep should the 5 Whys analysis go?
Until you reach a SYSTEMIC root. not a human error. 'Bob forgot to restart' is blame. 'The deployment pipeline has no post-deploy health check' is a system fix. The 5th Why should expose a process, architecture, or policy gap.
- 03
What makes an action item 'accountable'?
Three requirements: (1) Named owner. not 'the team'. (2) Deadline. not 'soon'. (3) Success metric. not 'improved'. Example: 'Owner: @maria, Deadline: 2024-02-15, Metric: p95 latency < 500ms for 7 consecutive days.'
Explore
More in Productivity
Curie Measurement Prover AI Connector
A team shipped a 'significant performance improvement.' Workflow, supplier, automation, and schedule all chang
ViewMarilyn vos Savant Probabilistic Clarity Prover AI Connector
Stop your AI from trusting its gut — force it to check intuition against actual probability before every concl
ViewAgent DAG Scheduler AI Connector
A deterministic engine for calculating execution order and scheduling metrics for multi-agent workflows.
ViewAI Ethics Prover AI Connector
An AI said 'AI should be fair and transparent' without naming a single affected group. It said 'we checked for
View
Suggestions
Elon Musk Physics Prover AI Connector
An AI accepted every constraint as given, added layers of complexity, and automated bloated processes. That is
ViewCausal-Graph Navigator AI Connector
LLMs reason by statistical proximity, confusing word co-occurrence with direct causal relationships. This tool
ViewIncident Response Economics AI Connector
Quantify the economic impact of software incidents and calculate ROI for prevention strategies.
ViewKubernetes Architecture Prover AI Connector
An AI generated Kubernetes manifests for a payment service. No resource requests or limits. No PodSecurityStan
View
