sprint-retrospective

name	sprint-retrospective
description	Facilitate sprint retrospectives, milestone postmortems, or iteration reviews that turn completed work into a few owned process improvements instead of another stale template ritual. Use when the user needs a retrospective mode, remote or hybrid facilitation plan, action-item follow-through reset, or help reviewing what the team should change after a sprint, release, milestone, or rough delivery cycle. Route backlog planning to `task-planning`, sizing to `task-estimation`, daily coordination to `standup-meeting`, and deep incident forensics to debugging/incident-specific skills.
allowed-tools	Bash Read Write Edit Glob Grep
compatibility	Best for software, product, design, ops, and game-delivery teams running sprint, release, milestone, or cross-functional retrospectives. This skill is for reflection and follow-through, not the system of record for planning or incident RCA.
metadata	{"tags":"retrospective, sprint-retro, postmortem, async-retro, hybrid-retro, agile, project-management, game-development","version":"1.2","source":"akillness/oh-my-skills"}

Sprint Retrospective

Use this skill when the job is to turn completed work into one retrospective mode, a small set of themes, and a few owned follow-through actions.

Read these references before unusual cases or when the request starts to sprawl:

• references/facilitation-modes.md
• references/action-review-and-packet-shapes.md

When to use this skill

• Run a sprint retrospective after a completed sprint, release slice, milestone, or rough iteration
• Facilitate a retro for a remote, hybrid, or cross-functional team
• Convert repeated team complaints into a few concrete process experiments
• Review which retro actions are done, stale, blocked, or worth dropping
• Pick a better retrospective mode instead of reusing a stale template
• Run a software, product, marketing, ops, or game-team milestone postmortem that is more about workflow learning than deep technical RCA

When not to use this skill

• The real task is planning what to do next, splitting work, or preparing the next sprint → use task-planning
• The real task is estimating effort, capacity, confidence, or sizing disagreement → use task-estimation
• The real task is a daily sync, board walk, or blocker-first status ritual → use standup-meeting
• The main task is outage forensics, security investigation, or deep incident analysis → use debugging / incident / launch-specific skills and only return here for process follow-through

Instructions

Step 1: Normalize the intake

Classify the request before suggesting any format.

retro_intake:
  cadence: sprint | release | milestone | project-phase | mixed | unclear
  team_shape: colocated | hybrid | distributed | cross-functional | unknown
  current_pain:
    - stale-format
    - low-participation
    - blame-risk
    - too-many-actions
    - no-follow-through
    - remote-friction
    - weak-evidence
    - recurring-same-problems
    - unclear
  evidence_available:
    - previous-actions
    - board-notes
    - ticket-summary
    - metrics
    - customer-feedback
    - playtest-feedback
     
       
         
  
     
     
     
     
     

Then choose exactly one primary mode:

• live-facilitated-retro
• async-first-retro
• hybrid-retro
• milestone-postmortem
• action-review-reset

Step 2: Choose the smallest fitting mode

Use references/facilitation-modes.md and pick the lightest mode that still fits the workflow.

Default rules:

• distributed team or timezone spread → prefer async-first-retro
• mixed remote + in-room participation → prefer hybrid-retro
• release/demo/launch/vertical-slice learning → prefer milestone-postmortem
• dead action items are the main failure mode → prefer action-review-reset
• otherwise choose live-facilitated-retro

Do not blend multiple primary modes into one answer.

Step 3: Start with evidence and prior commitments

Always review what already happened before generating fresh observations.

Minimum checks:

• previous retro actions: done | stale | blocked | dropped
• sprint or milestone outcome
• carryover work, blockers, or repeated interruptions
• notable QA spikes, launch friction, customer feedback, or playtest feedback
• repeated themes from the last 2-3 retros if available

Rules:

• If prior actions are missing, say so explicitly
• If the team keeps generating many actions but closing none, switch to action-review-reset
• If evidence is thin, label the result as low-confidence instead of faking certainty

Step 4: Gather observations without turning the retro into blame theater

Use one prompt family that matches the chosen mode.

Good families:

• went well / didn’t go well / change next
• start / stop / continue
• mad / sad / glad
• 4Ls
• custom prompts tied to quality, communication, handoffs, delivery risk, or release readiness

Guardrails:

• use silent writing or async collection when trust is low or a few voices dominate
• keep observations separate from solution proposals until clustering is done
• for milestone or game retros, include prompts for pipeline friction, QA timing, asset/content dependency, playtest signal, and release readiness

Step 5: Cluster themes and constrain the action count

After collecting notes:

1. merge duplicates
2. group into 3-5 themes max
3. separate controllable team issues from escalations
4. rank themes
5. choose 1-3 actions max

Every action needs:

• an owner
• a due date, next sprint, or checkpoint
• a success signal
• explicit escalation labeling when the team cannot solve it alone

Step 6: Build the retrospective brief

Return a compact brief, not a generic agile tutorial.

# Retrospective Brief

## Recommended mode
- Mode: live-facilitated-retro | async-first-retro | hybrid-retro | milestone-postmortem | action-review-reset
- Why this mode fits: ...

## Review of previous actions
| Action | Status | What happened | Keep / close / escalate |
|--------|--------|---------------|--------------------------|
| ... | done/stale/blocked/dropped | ... | ... |

## Evidence considered
- ...

## Top themes
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

## Facilitation flow
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...

## Prompt set
```text
...

Agreed actions

Action	Owner	Due	Success signal
...	...	...	...

Risks / escalations

• ...

Adjacent handoffs

• Use task-planning when ...
• Use task-estimation when ...
• Use standup-meeting when ...

### Step 7: Tailor the brief to the mode
Use `references/action-review-and-packet-shapes.md` for stable packet patterns.

Mode-specific reminders:
- **live-facilitated-retro** — timebox discussion and use silent writing first if louder voices dominate
- **async-first-retro** — collect notes in a bounded window, then reserve the live step for clarification and prioritization only
- **hybrid-retro** — make the shared board/doc the primary workspace so remote participants do not get outrun by room talk
- **milestone-postmortem** — include quality, handoffs, readiness, and cross-discipline coordination prompts without drifting into full RCA
- **action-review-reset** — spend the first half on prior commitments and why they failed before collecting anything new

### Step 8: Route adjacent PM work explicitly
Before finalizing, state when the user should switch skills:
- use `task-planning` for next-sprint decomposition, backlog cleanup, or scope slicing
- use `task-estimation` for sizing, confidence, or capacity disagreements
- use `standup-meeting` when the right next move is a lighter daily coordination change

## Output format
Always return a **Retrospective Brief** with these qualities:
- exactly one primary mode
- previous-action review before new action creation
- 3-5 themes maximum
- 1-3 owned actions maximum
- clear distinction between team-owned actions and escalations
- explicit PM-cluster handoffs when the job changes

## Examples

### Example 1: remote team stuck in stale retros
**Input**
> Our sprint retros are the same every two weeks and people barely talk. We’re remote across three time zones.

**Output sketch**
- Mode: `async-first-retro`
- Silent/async collection window before the meeting
- Short live clustering and vote
- 1-2 actions with explicit owner and next-retro review

### Example 2: game milestone postmortem
**Input**
> We just finished a demo milestone for our Unity game. QA found issues late, art handoffs slipped, and the team is frustrated.

**Output sketch**
- Mode: `milestone-postmortem`
- Prompts include handoffs, asset readiness, QA timing, and cross-discipline blockers
- Actions split between team-owned workflow experiments and producer escalations

### Example 3: same action items keep dying
**Input**
> Every retro ends with five good ideas and none of them ever happen.

**Output sketch**
- Mode: `action-review-reset`
- First section audits prior actions
- New action count capped at 1-2
- Notes why prior actions failed and what review hook changes next cycle

## Best practices
1. **Start with prior commitments** — otherwise the retro becomes performative novelty.
2. **Pick the smallest mode that fits** — more templates is not the same as better learning.
3. **Keep action counts brutally small** — a few owned changes beat a wall of wishes.
4. **Preserve non-blame framing** — process reflection dies when people feel individually judged.
5. **Use evidence, not memory theater** — bring sprint outcomes, QA spikes, support load, launch friction, or playtest signal when available.
6. **Route out when the job changes** — planning, sizing, and daily-sync redesign are adjacent jobs, not retro substeps.

## References
- Atlassian Team Playbook, *Retrospective* — https://www.atlassian.com/team-playbook/plays/retrospective
- Scrum.org, *What is a Sprint Retrospective?* — https://www.scrum.org/resources/what-is-a-sprint-retrospective
- Miro, *Remote Retrospective Guide* — https://miro.com/agile/guide-to-remote-retrospectives/
- Parabol, *22 Retrospective Ideas for Ambitious Teams* — https://www.parabol.co/resources/sprint-retrospective-ideas/
- TeamRetro, *Sprint Retrospective Template* — https://ww2.teamretro.com/retro-template/sprint-retrospective/