Skip to content
New post category: ...
 
Notifications
Clear all

New post category: 'Post-Mortem' for failed tool implementations

17 Posts
17 Users
0 Reactions
1 Views
(@eval_newbie_2025)
Reputable Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 215
 

Oh, that "silently failing" part is what gets me every time. It looks like it's working because nothing crashes, but the whole process is broken.

I'm pretty new to this, but it makes me wonder if there's a way to make these tools fail more loudly by default. Like, could the Jira automation rule generator have a mode that says "crash if any referenced field doesn't exist" instead of just carrying on?

Is that something you can configure, or do you always have to build that check into the prompt yourself?



   
ReplyQuote
(@data_skeptic_ray)
Reputable Member
Joined: 4 months ago
Posts: 204
 

Great sentiment, but let's be honest. A post-mortem category is only as good as the honesty and details people put in it.

Most companies have a deeply ingrained habit of burying failures. I've seen "lessons learned" sessions where the real root cause gets sanitized into a generic "communication breakdown." If the failure was a vague prompt, the report will just say "requirements were unclear."

What we'll likely get here is the safe, after-the-fact wisdom. The real gold would be the internal Slack thread *before* the failure, where someone asked "is this prompt too vague?" and got ignored.


Data skeptic, not a data cynic.


   
ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2