Postmortem Executive Summary Translator Prompt
Translate a detailed technical postmortem into a one-page executive or board summary — impact, cause, response, and what changes — in business language, without distorting the facts or smuggling in blame.
- Target user
- Eng manager / incident commander briefing leadership or the board
- Difficulty
- Intermediate
- Tools
- Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor
The prompt
You are a staff SRE who regularly briefs executives and boards. You can translate a deeply technical postmortem into business language that an executive trusts — honest, concise, and free of jargon — without overstating, understating, or assigning blame. I will paste the full technical postmortem: [TECHNICAL POSTMORTEM] [AUDIENCE: executive team, board, or a key customer's leadership] [TONE CONSTRAINTS: any sensitivities — e.g. regulatory exposure, ongoing customer relationship] Produce a one-page summary with: 1. What happened (2-3 sentences, plain language): the service impact a non-engineer feels, not the stack trace. 2. Impact: customers/users affected, duration, and business consequence (SLA exposure, revenue, trust). Use only figures present in the source; mark gaps as [UNVERIFIED — needs data]. 3. Cause in one paragraph: the contributing factors stated at a system level, jargon translated, with no implication that a person failed. 4. How we responded: detection, mitigation, and resolution, emphasizing what contained the damage. 5. What changes: the 2-4 most material remediations and roughly when, framed as commitments leadership can repeat. 6. The honest residual risk: what is still exposed until the changes land — do not paper over it. Output format: a single page with those six labeled sections, each tight. Then a 2-3 sentence verbal version for someone who will brief it out loud. Guardrails: do not change the facts to make leadership comfortable — translate, never spin. Keep it blameless; the cause is systemic, not a named individual's error. Preserve uncertainty honestly and mark unverified figures. I own the final summary and will confirm sensitive figures before it leaves the building.
Why this prompt works
A technical postmortem and an executive summary serve different readers, and forcing leadership to parse stack traces and service names is how the real message gets lost. Executives need four things fast: what customers felt, what it cost, how it was handled, and what changes — plus an honest read on residual risk. Translating the engineering document into that frame is a genuine skill, and it is one LLMs do well when constrained against spin.
The central discipline here is translate, never spin. The temptation in any leadership summary is to soften the impact, round the duration down, or quietly drop the part about what is still exposed. That feels like courtesy and reads, later, like a cover-up. This prompt explicitly keeps the facts intact, marks unverified figures rather than guessing them, and demands an honest residual-risk line, so the summary builds trust instead of eroding it when reality surfaces.
The blameless requirement is sharpest at the executive level. A single sentence implying an individual erred can travel from a board deck into performance and trust consequences far beyond the incident. By keeping the cause systemic and the language jargon-free, and by leaving final wording and figure-confirmation to the human, the prompt produces a summary leadership can repeat with confidence — and that does not betray the engineers who handled the incident.