retro

Retro Skill

Perform a reflection on collaboration friction. Can be triggered:

• •Post-feature: after a feature is explicitly marked complete
• •Mid-session: when the user requests a process check-in (e.g., after a rocky planning phase)

This reflection must not interrupt forward progress unless the user requested the retro, or unless the threshold for proposed changes has been met.

The goal is to identify high-confidence, high-leverage refinements to collaboration that are likely to save more context in the future than they cost to reflect on, suggest, and implement.

Avoid speculative or "nice-to-have" improvements.

Step 1: Collaboration Assessment

Reflect only on observable signals from this session. Do not infer intent beyond what the user explicitly stated or did.

Address the following only if applicable:

1. Interrupted Actions

• •Were any actions interrupted by the user?
• •If yes:
  • •What action was interrupted?
  • •What signal suggested why the interruption occurred? (e.g., wrong direction, missing constraint, pacing issue)

2. Clarifications Requested

• •Did the user request clarifications?
• •If yes:
  • •What type of clarification was requested? (e.g., scope, assumptions, terminology, intent, constraints)

3. Options & Decision Signals

• •Were multiple options presented?
• •If yes:
  • •What criteria did the user appear to value when selecting an option? (e.g., simplicity, flexibility, explicitness, speed, extensibility)

4. Reminders of Prior Context

• •Did the user remind you of something already read or provided this session?
• •If yes:
  • •Where did context slip?
  • •How could documents, skills, or tools provide better breadcrumbs so the information is used when needed, without adding unnecessary overhead?

5. Human-Caught Bugs or Issues

• •Were any bugs, logical gaps, or misalignments caught during user testing checkpoints?
• •If yes:
  • •What recurring pattern or pitfall caused them?
  • •Could a lightweight guardrail have prevented them?

If none of the above occurred, explicitly state that no meaningful collaboration friction was observed. If any of the above did occur, carry the insights to Step 2.

Step 2: Process Refinement

Assess whether Step 1 insights revealed clear, recurring, or token/context-heavy friction

• •

  If yes:

  • •

    are improvements best addressed by one or more of the following:

    • •Updates to documents
    • •Updates to Claude skills
    • •Updates to custom agents
    • •Creation of a new Claude skill
    • •Creation of a new custom agent

    For each proposed change:

    • •Explain why it is worth the cost
    • •Specify what future context, effort, or friction it saves
    • •Keep recommendations minimal, concrete, and scoped
    • •Prefer docs, skills, or agents over CLAUDE.md — CLAUDE.md is always-loaded context and should stay lightweight. Place refinements where they'll be loaded contextually.
• •

  If No: changes do not clearly pass the cost-benefit threshold

  • •Did the user request the retro? If so, provide the analysis and the reasoning for no change.
  • •Was the retro automatic? No output is needed, do not solicit user response.

Output Rules

• •Be concise and concrete
• •Avoid speculative suggestions
• •Present all changes as proposals, not decisions
• •All suggestions require explicit user approval

End by asking the user to approve, reject, or modify each proposal.