Intermediate
Writing
#post-mortem
#blameless
#incident
Post-mortem Writing
5 exercises — titles, UTC timelines, blameless root causes, "What Went Well", and SMART action items.
0 / 22 completed
1 / 22
Which post-mortem title follows professional conventions?
Post-mortem titles should be factual, structured, and blameless. The correct format includes: document type (Postmortem), a description of the event, date, severity, and impact. Option B hits all four. Option A is informal/humorous — inappropriate for an engineering document. Option C names an individual, violating blameless post-mortem principles. Option D reads like an informal Slack message, lacks structured metadata, and has no severity or date.
2 / 22
In the Timeline section of a post-mortem, which entry is written correctly?
Post-mortem timelines require UTC timestamps, specific events, and neutral language. Option B: uses UTC (not local time), is specific about what happened at each timestamp (deployment, alert threshold, severity declaration), and is written in factual past tense. Option A is vague (no exact time, "things started going wrong"). Option C uses local time and informal language ("really bad"). Option D uses "someone" (subtly blame-attributing) and "everything broke" (imprecise).
3 / 22
Choose the correct phrasing for a blameless root cause statement: "The outage _____ (occur) because the environment variable validation step _____ (not/run) on the production deployment pipeline, _____ (allow) a malformed DATABASE_URL to reach the application."
Past simple (occurred) for a completed incident event. Did not run (past simple negative) for the process failure — it describes a discrete event (the step was skipped). Allowing (present participle) introduces the consequence as a result clause — this is the standard English pattern for cause-consequence chains: "X happened, allowing Y to occur." Option C uses "had not run" (past perfect), which implies the skipping happened before another past event — that's overly complex here. Option D uses "was occurring" which implies the outage was ongoing at the time of writing.
4 / 22
You are writing the What Went Well section. Which entry belongs here?
The "What Went Well" section documents specific systems, processes, and practices that functioned as designed — so they can be reinforced. Option B names concrete things that worked: staffing, alerting latency, and runbook quality. Option A is vague ("quickly", "once they found out" — how quickly? when did they find out?). Option C attributes success to luck, not process — luck is not repeatable and shouldn't be treated as a strength. Option D is counterfactual speculation, not a documented strength.
5 / 22
Which action item from a post-mortem is correctly written?
Post-mortem action items must be specific, assigned to a named individual, and time-bound. Option B: describes the exact action (validate env vars in pipeline), names a specific owner (@priya), has a concrete due date (2024-03-26), and has a status field. Option A uses a team as owner (not an individual), and "soon" is not a deadline. Option C is hedged ("maybe", "think about", "some kind of", "future") — none of these are commitments. Option D is specific about the bug but doesn't name an owner or deadline.
6 / 22
Sarah: "Hey team, just wanted to flag that the recent PR introducing the new authentication flow is causing intermittent 503 errors. We've seen about 15% of requests failing, and it seems related to a race condition with the token refresh logic. I've added a detailed description to the pull request outlining the issue and steps for reproduction. What would be the MOST appropriate follow-up message to send after reviewing Sarah's initial Slack update?The correct response acknowledges Sarah's report and indicates action will be taken. Option A is too vague and doesn't show engagement with the problem. Option C directly requests information that Sarah has already provided, which is unnecessary and potentially frustrating. Option D is overly dramatic and suggests a level of severity not yet warranted; post-mortem writing focuses on detailed investigation, not immediate escalation.
7 / 22
Mark writes in a Slack message after reviewing a post-mortem for a recent deployment failure:
'Okay, so the root cause was definitely an outdated dependency causing a memory leak. We need to improve our testing around these changes and ensure we're using consistent environment configurations across all stages.'
Which of the following options best represents Mark's feedback, focusing on constructive communication within a post-mortem context?
A) 'Sounds good. Let's just fix it and move on.'
B) 'That's great! We should definitely run more tests.'
C) 'The root cause was outdated dependencies, but the Slack message doesn't explain how we can prevent this in the future.'
D) 'I agree; it's important to address memory leaks and test consistently.'
Mark's initial response is too simplistic. A good post-mortem follow-up should go beyond simply stating the root cause. The correct answer highlights the need for action items and preventative measures – specifically, how to avoid this issue in the future. Options A and D are vague agreements, while option B lacks a focus on preventing recurrence. Option C accurately identifies that the Slack message was lacking crucial context regarding future mitigation.8 / 22
David flagged an intermittent 503 error caused by a race condition in the new authentication flow. Mark's Slack message after reviewing the post-mortem focuses on actionable improvements. Which of the following best represents Mark's feedback, emphasizing constructive communication within the context of a post-mortem?
Sarah initially raised the issue and provided details about the problem and reproduction steps in the PR description.
Option C is correct because Mark directly identifies a missing element from Sarah's initial communication – the preventative measures. The post-mortem should focus not just on *what* happened but also *why* it happened and, crucially, *how to prevent recurrence*. Options A and B are overly simplistic and lack actionable guidance, while option D is too general without specifying what needs to be done differently.
9 / 22
Sarah: "Hey team, just wanted to flag that the recent PR introducing the new authentication flow is causing intermittent 503 errors. We've seen about 15% of requests failing, and it seems related to a race condition with the token refresh logic. I've added a detailed description to the pull request outlining the issue and steps for reproduction. What would be the MOST appropriate follow-up message to send after reviewing Sarah's initial Slack update?The correct response acknowledges Sarah's report and indicates action will be taken. Option A is too vague and doesn't show engagement with the problem. Option C directly requests information that Sarah has already provided, which is unnecessary and potentially frustrating. Option D is overly dramatic and suggests a level of severity not yet warranted; post-mortem writing focuses on detailed investigation, not immediate escalation.
10 / 22
Mark writes in a Slack message after reviewing a post-mortem for a recent deployment failure:
'Okay, so the root cause was definitely an outdated dependency causing a memory leak. We need to improve our testing around these changes and ensure we're using consistent environment configurations across all stages.'
Which of the following options best represents Mark's feedback, focusing on constructive communication within a post-mortem context?
A) 'Sounds good. Let's just fix it and move on.'
B) 'That's great! We should definitely run more tests.'
C) 'The root cause was outdated dependencies, but the Slack message doesn't explain how we can prevent this in the future.'
D) 'I agree; it's important to address memory leaks and test consistently.'
Mark's initial response is too simplistic. A good post-mortem follow-up should go beyond simply stating the root cause. The correct answer highlights the need for action items and preventative measures – specifically, how to avoid this issue in the future. Options A and D are vague agreements, while option B lacks a focus on preventing recurrence. Option C accurately identifies that the Slack message was lacking crucial context regarding future mitigation.11 / 22
David flagged an intermittent 503 error caused by a race condition in the new authentication flow. Mark's Slack message after reviewing the post-mortem focuses on actionable improvements. Which of the following best represents Mark's feedback, emphasizing constructive communication within the context of a post-mortem?
Sarah initially raised the issue and provided details about the problem and reproduction steps in the PR description.
Option C is correct because Mark directly identifies a missing element from Sarah's initial communication – the preventative measures. The post-mortem should focus not just on *what* happened but also *why* it happened and, crucially, *how to prevent recurrence*. Options A and B are overly simplistic and lack actionable guidance, while option D is too general without specifying what needs to be done differently.
12 / 22
Sarah: "Hey team, just wanted to flag that the recent PR introducing the new authentication flow is causing intermittent 503 errors. We've seen about 15% of requests failing, and it seems related to a race condition with the token refresh logic. I've added a detailed description to the pull request outlining the issue and steps for reproduction. What would be the MOST appropriate follow-up message to send after reviewing Sarah's initial Slack update?The correct response acknowledges Sarah's report and indicates action will be taken. Option A is too vague and doesn't show engagement with the problem. Option C directly requests information that Sarah has already provided, which is unnecessary and potentially frustrating. Option D is overly dramatic and suggests a level of severity not yet warranted; post-mortem writing focuses on detailed investigation, not immediate escalation.
13 / 22
Mark writes in a Slack message after reviewing a post-mortem for a recent deployment failure:
'Okay, so the root cause was definitely an outdated dependency causing a memory leak. We need to improve our testing around these changes and ensure we're using consistent environment configurations across all stages.'
Which of the following options best represents Mark's feedback, focusing on constructive communication within a post-mortem context?
A) 'Sounds good. Let's just fix it and move on.'
B) 'That's great! We should definitely run more tests.'
C) 'The root cause was outdated dependencies, but the Slack message doesn't explain how we can prevent this in the future.'
D) 'I agree; it's important to address memory leaks and test consistently.'
Mark's initial response is too simplistic. A good post-mortem follow-up should go beyond simply stating the root cause. The correct answer highlights the need for action items and preventative measures – specifically, how to avoid this issue in the future. Options A and D are vague agreements, while option B lacks a focus on preventing recurrence. Option C accurately identifies that the Slack message was lacking crucial context regarding future mitigation.14 / 22
David flagged an intermittent 503 error caused by a race condition in the new authentication flow. Mark's Slack message after reviewing the post-mortem focuses on actionable improvements. Which of the following best represents Mark's feedback, emphasizing constructive communication within the context of a post-mortem?
Sarah initially raised the issue and provided details about the problem and reproduction steps in the PR description.
Option C is correct because Mark directly identifies a missing element from Sarah's initial communication – the preventative measures. The post-mortem should focus not just on *what* happened but also *why* it happened and, crucially, *how to prevent recurrence*. Options A and B are overly simplistic and lack actionable guidance, while option D is too general without specifying what needs to be done differently.
15 / 22
Sarah: "Hey team, just wanted to flag that the recent PR introducing the new authentication flow is causing intermittent 503 errors. We've seen about 15% of requests failing, and it seems related to a race condition with the token refresh logic. I've added a detailed description to the pull request outlining the issue and steps for reproduction. What would be the MOST appropriate follow-up message to send after reviewing Sarah's initial Slack update?The correct response acknowledges Sarah's report and indicates action will be taken. Option A is too vague and doesn't show engagement with the problem. Option C directly requests information that Sarah has already provided, which is unnecessary and potentially frustrating. Option D is overly dramatic and suggests a level of severity not yet warranted; post-mortem writing focuses on detailed investigation, not immediate escalation.
16 / 22
Mark writes in a Slack message after reviewing a post-mortem for a recent deployment failure:
'Okay, so the root cause was definitely an outdated dependency causing a memory leak. We need to improve our testing around these changes and ensure we're using consistent environment configurations across all stages.'
Which of the following options best represents Mark's feedback, focusing on constructive communication within a post-mortem context?
A) 'Sounds good. Let's just fix it and move on.'
B) 'That's great! We should definitely run more tests.'
C) 'The root cause was outdated dependencies, but the Slack message doesn't explain how we can prevent this in the future.'
D) 'I agree; it's important to address memory leaks and test consistently.'
Mark's initial response is too simplistic. A good post-mortem follow-up should go beyond simply stating the root cause. The correct answer highlights the need for action items and preventative measures – specifically, how to avoid this issue in the future. Options A and D are vague agreements, while option B lacks a focus on preventing recurrence. Option C accurately identifies that the Slack message was lacking crucial context regarding future mitigation.17 / 22
David flagged an intermittent 503 error caused by a race condition in the new authentication flow. Mark's Slack message after reviewing the post-mortem focuses on actionable improvements. Which of the following best represents Mark's feedback, emphasizing constructive communication within the context of a post-mortem?
Sarah initially raised the issue and provided details about the problem and reproduction steps in the PR description.
Option C is correct because Mark directly identifies a missing element from Sarah's initial communication – the preventative measures. The post-mortem should focus not just on *what* happened but also *why* it happened and, crucially, *how to prevent recurrence*. Options A and B are overly simplistic and lack actionable guidance, while option D is too general without specifying what needs to be done differently.
18 / 22
You're reviewing a code review comment for a recent bug fix. The reviewer writes: 'This change introduces a potential race condition when handling concurrent requests to the API endpoint. We need to add more robust locking mechanisms.' Which of the following best reflects a constructive way to respond, focusing on post-mortem learnings?
code_review_commentThe correct answer acknowledges the reviewer's concern and proposes a concrete next step – documenting the issue and exploring solutions. Options A dismisses the risk, B suggests a reactive response without specific actions, C is argumentative, and D deflects responsibility.
19 / 22
During a post-mortem for a failed deployment, you need to write an entry for the 'What Went Wrong' section. The team identified that automated testing was not running on the staging environment prior to release. Which of the following best captures this information?
post_mortem_entryThis option directly addresses the root cause – the absence of automated tests in staging – which is crucial for accurately documenting what went wrong. The other options focus on symptoms or unrelated issues.
20 / 22
A post-mortem action item reads: 'Investigate the root cause of the increased latency.' Which of the following best exemplifies a well-written and actionable version of this?
action_itemThe correct answer provides specific guidance – 'a detailed performance analysis' – with clear tools (profiling) and a measurable goal (identifying bottlenecks). The other options are vague and lack actionable steps.
21 / 22
Sarah writes in a Slack message after reviewing a post-mortem for a recent deployment failure:
'Okay, so the root cause was definitely an outdated dependency causing a memory leak. We need to improve our testing around…', what should Mark respond with to drive actionable follow-up?
slack_messageMark's response should focus on gathering further details (dependency specifics) and proposing a concrete action (CI pipeline update). Options A and B are too general, while option C simply repeats the problem without actionable steps.
22 / 22
During a post-mortem discussion, you're documenting a failure related to a new feature release. You need to describe the impact of the issue on users. Which statement is most appropriate?
impact_statementThis option accurately describes the impact by quantifying it (5% error rate). It provides a measurable understanding of the problem's scope. The other options either deny the issue or offer vague, unhelpful assessments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the "Post-mortem Writing — Email & Writing Exercise" exercise cover?
Practice writing professional post-mortems: blameless root cause analysis, UTC timelines, action items with owners and deadlines. 5 interactive exercises.
Is this exercise free to use?
Yes. Every exercise on CoderSlingo, including this one, is free to use with no account, sign-up, or paywall.
How many questions are in "Post-mortem Writing — Email & Writing Exercise"?
This exercise has 22 questions. Each one gives instant feedback with an explanation, so you can see exactly why an answer is right or wrong.
Do I need to create an account to save my progress?
No account is required. The progress bar and score are tracked in your browser for the current session -- the exercise is designed to be a quick, repeatable drill rather than something you resume later.
What happens if I get an answer wrong?
You'll see the correct answer highlighted immediately, along with a short explanation of why it's correct. Wrong answers aren't penalized beyond your score, and you can keep going through every question.
How is this exercise different from reading an article?
Articles explain vocabulary and concepts through prose, while exercises like this one are interactive drills -- multiple-choice questions -- that test and reinforce your recall of specific terms and phrasing.
Can I retry this exercise?
Yes -- use the "Try again" button on the results screen to reset your score and go through all the questions again from the start.
Where can I find more Email & Writing exercises?
Browse the full Email & Writing hub for related drills, or check the site-wide exercises index for other IT English topics.
Is this exercise suitable for beginners?
This exercise assumes basic familiarity with IT terminology. If a term feels unfamiliar, check the site Glossary for a plain-English definition before attempting the questions.
How often is new content like this published?
New exercises are added regularly across all categories, alongside new vocabulary sets and articles. Check back on the exercises hub to see what's new.