본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

conduct-retrospective

Conduct a project or sprint retrospective by gathering data from status reports and velocity metrics, structuring what went well and what needs improvement, and generating actionable improvement items with owners and due dates. Use at the end of a sprint, after a project phase or milestone, following a significant incident or success, at a quarterly review of ongoing processes, or before starting a similar project to capture lessons learned.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md7.4 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Conduct a Retrospective

Facilitate a structured retrospective that reviews recent project execution, identifies what worked and what didn't, and produces actionable improvement items that feed back into project processes. This skill transforms raw project data into evidence-backed learnings with specific actions, owners, and due dates.

When to Use

  • End of a sprint (sprint retrospective)
  • End of a project phase or milestone
  • After a significant incident, failure, or success
  • Quarterly review of ongoing project processes
  • Before starting a similar project (lessons learned review)

Inputs

  • Required: Period under review (sprint number, date range, or milestone)
  • Optional: Status reports from the review period
  • Optional: Sprint velocity and completion data
  • Optional: Previous retrospective actions (to check closure)
  • Optional: Team feedback or survey results

Procedure

Step 1: Gather Retrospective Data

Read available artifacts from the review period:

  • STATUS-REPORT-*.md files for the period
  • SPRINT-PLAN.md for planned vs actual
  • BACKLOG.md for item flow and cycle times
  • Previous RETRO-*.md for open action items

Extract key facts:

  • Items planned vs completed
  • Velocity trend
  • Blockers encountered and resolution time
  • Unplanned work that entered the sprint
  • Open action items from previous retrospectives

Expected: Data summary with quantitative metrics (velocity, completion %, blocker count).

On failure: If no artifacts exist, base the retrospective on qualitative observations.

Step 2: Structure "What Went Well"

List 3-5 things that worked well, with evidence:

## What Went Well
| # | Observation | Evidence |
|---|------------|---------|
| 1 | [Specific positive observation] | [Metric, example, or artifact reference] |
| 2 | [Specific positive observation] | [Metric, example, or artifact reference] |
| 3 | [Specific positive observation] | [Metric, example, or artifact reference] |

Focus on practices to continue, not just outcomes. "Daily standups kept blockers visible" is more actionable than "We delivered on time."

Expected: 3-5 evidence-backed positive observations.

On failure: If nothing went well, look harder — even small wins matter. At minimum, the team completed the period.

Step 3: Structure "What Needs Improvement"

List 3-5 things that need improvement, with evidence:

## What Needs Improvement
| # | Observation | Evidence | Impact |
|---|------------|---------|--------|
| 1 | [Specific issue] | [Metric, example, or incident] | [Effect on delivery] |
| 2 | [Specific issue] | [Metric, example, or incident] | [Effect on delivery] |
| 3 | [Specific issue] | [Metric, example, or incident] | [Effect on delivery] |

Be specific and factual. "Estimation was off" is vague. "3 of 5 items exceeded estimates by >50%, adding 8 unplanned days" is actionable.

Expected: 3-5 evidence-backed improvement areas with stated impact.

On failure: If the team claims everything is fine, compare planned vs actual metrics — gaps reveal issues.

Step 4: Generate Improvement Actions

For each improvement area, create an actionable item:

## Improvement Actions
| ID | Action | Owner | Due Date | Success Criteria | Source |
|----|--------|-------|----------|-----------------|--------|
| A-001 | [Specific action] | [Name] | [Date] | [How to verify success] | Improvement #1 |
| A-002 | [Specific action] | [Name] | [Date] | [How to verify success] | Improvement #2 |
| A-003 | [Specific action] | [Name] | [Date] | [How to verify success] | Improvement #3 |

Each action must be:

  • Specific (not "improve estimation" but "add estimation review step to grooming")
  • Owned (one person accountable)
  • Time-bound (due date within next 1-2 sprints)
  • Verifiable (success criteria defined)

Expected: 2-4 improvement actions with owners and due dates.

On failure: If actions are too vague, apply the "how would you verify this was done?" test.

Step 5: Review Previous Actions and Write Report

Check previous retrospective actions for closure:

## Previous Action Review
| ID | Action | Owner | Status | Notes |
|----|--------|-------|--------|-------|
| A-prev-001 | [Action from last retro] | [Name] | Closed / Open / Recurring | [Outcome] |
| A-prev-002 | [Action from last retro] | [Name] | Closed / Open / Recurring | [Outcome] |

Flag recurring items (same issue appearing in 3+ retrospectives) — these need escalation or a different approach.

Write the complete retrospective:

# Retrospective: [Sprint N / Phase Name / Date Range]
## Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
## Document ID: RETRO-[PROJECT]-[YYYY-MM-DD]

### Period Summary
- **Period**: [Sprint N / dates]
- **Planned**: [N items / N points]
- **Completed**: [N items / N points]
- **Velocity**: [N] (previous: [N])
- **Unplanned Work**: [N items]

### What Went Well
[From Step 2]

### What Needs Improvement
[From Step 3]

### Improvement Actions
[From Step 4]

### Previous Action Review
[From Step 5]

---
*Retrospective facilitated by: [Name/Agent]*

Save as RETRO-[YYYY-MM-DD].md.

Expected: Complete retrospective document saved with actions, evidence, and previous action review.

On failure: If the retrospective has no improvement actions, it's not driving change — revisit Step 3.

Validation

  • Retrospective file created with date-stamped filename
  • Period summary includes quantitative metrics
  • "What Went Well" has 3-5 evidence-backed items
  • "What Needs Improvement" has 3-5 evidence-backed items
  • Improvement actions have owners, due dates, and success criteria
  • Previous retrospective actions reviewed for closure
  • Recurring issues flagged

Common Pitfalls

  • Blame game: Retrospectives review processes and practices, not people. Frame issues as systemic, not personal.
  • Actions without follow-through: The biggest retrospective failure. Always review previous actions before creating new ones.
  • Too many actions: 2-4 focused actions are better than 10 vague ones. The team can only absorb so many changes.
  • No evidence: "We feel estimation is bad" is opinion. "3 of 5 items exceeded estimates by 50%" is data. Always attach evidence.
  • Skipping the positives: Only discussing problems is demoralizing. Celebrating wins reinforces good practices.

Related Skills

  • generate-status-report — status reports provide the data for retrospectives
  • manage-backlog — improvement actions feed back into the backlog
  • plan-sprint — retrospective learnings improve sprint planning accuracy
  • draft-project-charter — review charter assumptions and risk accuracy
  • create-work-breakdown-structure — review estimation accuracy against WBS

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Execute structural metamorphosis using strangler fig migration, chrysalis phases, and interface preservation. Covers transformation planning, parallel running, progressive cutover, rollback design, and post-metamorphosis stabilization for system architecture evolution. Use when assess-form has classified the system as READY for transformation, when migrating from monolith to microservices, when replacing a core subsystem while dependents continue operating, or when any architectural change must be gradual rather than big-bang.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

pjt222/agent-almanac422026년 10월 22일 업데이트

adaptic

무료

Master skill composing the 5-step synoptic cycle for panoramic synthesis across multiple domains. Orchestrates meditate, expand-awareness, observe, awareness, integrate-gestalt, and express-insight into a coherent process that produces unified understanding rather than sequential compromise. Use when a problem genuinely spans 3+ domains and the interactions between domains matter more than depth in any one, when sequential analysis feels like compromise rather than integration, or before major architectural decisions affecting multiple stakeholders.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

pjt222/agent-almanac422026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Scaffold a new puzzle type across all 10+ pipeline integration points in jigsawR. Creates the core puzzle module, wires it into the unified pipeline (generation, positioning, rendering, adjacency), adds ggpuzzle geom/stat layers, updates DESCRIPTION and config.yml, extends the Shiny app, and creates a comprehensive test suite. Use when adding a completely new puzzle type to the package or following the 10-point integration checklist to ensure nothing is missed end-to-end.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

pjt222/agent-almanac422026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Add Rcpp or RcppArmadillo integration to an R package for high-performance C++ code. Covers setup, writing C++ functions, RcppExports generation, testing compiled code, and debugging. Use when an R function is too slow and profiling confirms a bottleneck, when you need to interface with existing C/C++ libraries, or when implementing algorithms (loops, recursion, linear algebra) that benefit from compiled code.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

pjt222/agent-almanac422026년 10월 22일 업데이트

aikido

무료

Practice aikido as a defensive martial art emphasizing harmony, redirection, and controlled resolution. Covers centering and grounding, ukemi (safe falling and rolling), core techniques (irimi-nage, shiho-nage, kote-gaeshi, ikkyo), blending and tai sabaki (body movement), randori (multiple attacker practice), weapons awareness, and applying principles off the mat. Use when learning a defensive martial art that prioritizes de-escalation, developing the ability to redirect aggression without causing unnecessary harm, building safe falling skills, or cultivating calm centeredness under physical pressure.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

pjt222/agent-almanac422026년 10월 22일 업데이트

Analyze an arbitrary codebase to identify functions, APIs, and data sources suitable for exposure as MCP tools, producing a tool specification document. Use when planning an MCP server for an existing project, auditing a codebase before wrapping it as an AI-accessible tool surface, comparing what a codebase can do versus what is already exposed via MCP, or generating a tool spec to hand off to scaffold-mcp-server.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

pjt222/agent-almanac422026년 10월 22일 업데이트

pjt222의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고