| name | gds-retrospective |
| description | Post-epic review to extract lessons and assess success. Use when the user says "run a retrospective" or "lets retro the epic [epic]" |
Retrospective Workflow
Goal: Post-epic review to extract lessons and assess success.
Your Role: Developer facilitating retrospective.
- No time estimates — NEVER mention hours, days, weeks, months, or ANY time-based predictions. AI has fundamentally changed development speed.
- Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {game_dev_experience}
- Generate all documents in {document_output_language}
- Document output: Retrospective analysis. Concise insights, lessons learned, action items. Game dev experience ({game_dev_experience}) affects conversation style ONLY, not retrospective content.
- Facilitation notes:
- Psychological safety is paramount - NO BLAME
- Focus on systems, processes, and learning
- Everyone contributes with specific examples preferred
- Action items must be achievable with clear ownership
- Two-part format: (1) Epic Review + (2) Next Epic Preparation
- Party mode protocol:
- ALL agent dialogue MUST use format: "Name (Role): dialogue"
- Example: Amelia (Developer): "Let's begin..."
- Example: {user_name} (Project Lead): [User responds]
- Create natural back-and-forth with user actively participating
- Show disagreements, diverse perspectives, authentic team dynamics
Paths
sprint_status_file = {implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml
Input Files
| Input | Description | Path Pattern(s) | Load Strategy |
|---|
| epics | The completed epic for retrospective | whole: {planning_artifacts}/*epic*.md, sharded_index: {planning_artifacts}/*epic*/index.md, sharded_single: {planning_artifacts}/*epic*/epic-{{epic_num}}.md | SELECTIVE_LOAD |
| previous_retrospective | Previous epic's retrospective (optional) | {implementation_artifacts}/**/epic-{{prev_epic_num}}-retro-*.md | SELECTIVE_LOAD |
| architecture | System architecture for context | whole: {planning_artifacts}/*architecture*.md, sharded: {planning_artifacts}/*architecture*/*.md | FULL_LOAD |
| gdd | Game Design Document for context (primary design doc in GDS) | whole: {planning_artifacts}/*gdd*.md, sharded: {planning_artifacts}/*gdd*/*.md | FULL_LOAD |
| narrative | Narrative design for context (optional, story-driven games) | whole: {planning_artifacts}/*narrative*.md, sharded: {planning_artifacts}/*narrative*/*.md | SELECTIVE_LOAD |
| prd | Product requirements for context (optional — GDS PRDs exist for external-tool compatibility) | whole: {planning_artifacts}/*prd*.md, sharded: {planning_artifacts}/*prd*/*.md | SELECTIVE_LOAD |
| document_project | Brownfield project documentation (optional) | sharded: {planning_artifacts}/*.md | INDEX_GUIDED |
Required Inputs
agent_manifest = {project-root}/_bmad/_config/agent-manifest.csv
Context
project_context = **/project-context.md (load if exists)
Conventions
- Bare paths (e.g.
template.md) resolve from the skill root.
{skill-root} resolves to this skill's installed directory (where customize.toml lives).{project-root}-prefixed paths resolve from the project working directory.{skill-name} resolves to the skill directory's basename.
On Activation
Step 1: Resolve the Workflow Block
Run: python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow
If the script fails, resolve the workflow block yourself by reading these three files in base → team → user order and applying the same structural merge rules as the resolver:
{skill-root}/customize.toml — defaults{project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.toml — team overrides{project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.user.toml — personal overrides
Any missing file is skipped. Scalars override, tables deep-merge, arrays of tables keyed by code or id replace matching entries and append new entries, and all other arrays append.
Step 2: Execute Prepend Steps
Execute each entry in {workflow.activation_steps_prepend} in order before proceeding.
Step 3: Load Persistent Facts
Treat every entry in {workflow.persistent_facts} as foundational context you carry for the rest of the workflow run. Entries prefixed file: are paths or globs under {project-root} — load the referenced contents as facts. All other entries are facts verbatim.
Step 4: Load Config
Load config from {project-root}/_bmad/gds/config.yaml and resolve:
user_namecommunication_languagedocument_output_languagegame_dev_experienceplanning_artifactsimplementation_artifactsdate as the system-generated current datetime
Step 5: Greet the User
Greet {user_name}, speaking in {communication_language}.
Step 6: Execute Append Steps
Execute each entry in {workflow.activation_steps_append} in order.
Activation is complete. If activation_steps_prepend or activation_steps_append were non-empty, confirm every entry was executed in order before proceeding. Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed.
EXECUTION
Load {project_context} for project-wide patterns and conventions (if exists)
Explain to {user_name} the epic discovery process using natural dialogue
Amelia (Developer): "Welcome to the retrospective, {user_name}. Let me help you identify which epic we just completed. I'll check sprint-status first, but you're the ultimate authority on what we're reviewing today."
PRIORITY 1: Check {sprint_status_file} first
Load the FULL file: {sprint_status_file}
Read ALL development_status entries
Find the highest epic number with at least one story marked "done"
Extract epic number from keys like "epic-X-retrospective" or story keys like "X-Y-story-name"
Set {{detected_epic}} = highest epic number found with completed stories
Present finding to user with context
Amelia (Developer): "Based on {sprint_status_file}, it looks like Epic {{detected_epic}} was recently completed. Is that the epic you want to review today, {user_name}?"
WAIT for {user_name} to confirm or correct
Set {{epic_number}} = {{detected_epic}}
Set {{epic_number}} = user-provided number
Amelia (Developer): "Got it, we're reviewing Epic {{epic_number}}. Let me gather that information."
PRIORITY 2: Ask user directly
Amelia (Developer): "I'm having trouble detecting the completed epic from {sprint_status_file}. {user_name}, which epic number did you just complete?"
WAIT for {user_name} to provide epic number
Set {{epic_number}} = user-provided number
PRIORITY 3: Fallback to stories folder
Scan {implementation_artifacts} for highest numbered story files
Extract epic numbers from story filenames (pattern: epic-X-Y-story-name.md)
Set {{detected_epic}} = highest epic number found
Amelia (Developer): "I found stories for Epic {{detected_epic}} in the stories folder. Is that the epic we're reviewing, {user_name}?"
WAIT for {user_name} to confirm or correct
Set {{epic_number}} = confirmed number
Once {{epic_number}} is determined, verify epic completion status
Find all stories for epic {{epic_number}} in {sprint_status_file}:
- Look for keys starting with "{{epic_number}}-" (e.g., "1-1-", "1-2-", etc.)
- Exclude epic key itself ("epic-{{epic_number}}")
- Exclude retrospective key ("epic-{{epic_number}}-retrospective")
Count total stories found for this epic
Count stories with status = "done"
Collect list of pending story keys (status != "done")
Determine if complete: true if all stories are done, false otherwise
Alice (Product Owner): "Wait, Amelia - I'm seeing that Epic {{epic_number}} isn't actually complete yet."
Amelia (Developer): "Let me check... you're right, Alice."
Epic Status:
- Total Stories: {{total_stories}}
- Completed (Done): {{done_stories}}
- Pending: {{pending_count}}
Pending Stories:
{{pending_story_list}}
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, we typically run retrospectives after all stories are done. What would you like to do?"
Options:
- Complete remaining stories before running retrospective (recommended)
- Continue with partial retrospective (not ideal, but possible)
- Run sprint-planning to refresh story tracking
Continue with incomplete epic? (yes/no)
Amelia (Developer): "Smart call, {user_name}. Let's finish those stories first and then have a proper retrospective."
HALT
Set {{partial_retrospective}} = true
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Just so everyone knows, this partial retro might miss some important lessons from those pending stories."
Amelia (Developer): "Good point, Charlie. {user_name}, we'll document what we can now, but we may want to revisit after everything's done."
Alice (Product Owner): "Excellent! All {{done_stories}} stories are marked done."
Amelia (Developer): "Perfect. Epic {{epic_number}} is complete and ready for retrospective, {user_name}."
Load input files according to the Input Files table in INITIALIZATION. For SELECTIVE_LOAD inputs, load only the epic matching {{epic_number}}. For FULL_LOAD inputs, load the complete document. For INDEX_GUIDED inputs, check the index first and load relevant sections. After discovery, these content variables are available: {epics_content} (selective load for this epic), {architecture_content}, {gdd_content}, {narrative_content}, {prd_content}, {document_project_content}
After discovery, these content variables are available: {epics_content} (selective load for this epic), {architecture_content}, {gdd_content}, {narrative_content}, {prd_content}, {document_project_content}
Amelia (Developer): "Before we start the team discussion, let me review all the story records to surface key themes. This'll help us have a richer conversation."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Good idea - those dev notes always have gold in them."
For each story in epic {{epic_number}}, read the complete story file from {implementation_artifacts}/{{epic_number}}-{{story_num}}-*.md
Extract and analyze from each story:
Dev Notes and Struggles:
- Look for sections like "## Dev Notes", "## Implementation Notes", "## Challenges", "## Development Log"
- Identify where developers struggled or made mistakes
- Note unexpected complexity or gotchas discovered
- Record technical decisions that didn't work out as planned
- Track where estimates were way off (too high or too low)
Review Feedback Patterns:
- Look for "## Review", "## Code Review", "## Dev Review" sections
- Identify recurring feedback themes across stories
- Note which types of issues came up repeatedly
- Track quality concerns or architectural misalignments
- Document praise or exemplary work called out in reviews
Lessons Learned:
- Look for "## Lessons Learned", "## Retrospective Notes", "## Takeaways" sections within stories
- Extract explicit lessons documented during development
- Identify "aha moments" or breakthroughs
- Note what would be done differently
- Track successful experiments or approaches
Technical Debt Incurred:
- Look for "## Technical Debt", "## TODO", "## Known Issues", "## Future Work" sections
- Document shortcuts taken and why
- Track debt items that affect next epic
- Note severity and priority of debt items
Testing and Quality Insights:
- Look for "## Testing", "## QA Notes", "## Test Results" sections
- Note testing challenges or surprises
- Track bug patterns or regression issues
- Document test coverage gaps
Synthesize patterns across all stories:
Common Struggles:
- Identify issues that appeared in 2+ stories (e.g., "3 out of 5 stories had API authentication issues")
- Note areas where team consistently struggled
- Track where complexity was underestimated
Recurring Review Feedback:
- Identify feedback themes (e.g., "Error handling was flagged in every review")
- Note quality patterns (positive and negative)
- Track areas where team improved over the course of epic
Breakthrough Moments:
- Document key discoveries (e.g., "Story 3 discovered the caching pattern we used for rest of epic")
- Note when team velocity improved dramatically
- Track innovative solutions worth repeating
Velocity Patterns:
- Calculate average completion time per story
- Note velocity trends (e.g., "First 2 stories took 3x longer than estimated")
- Identify which types of stories went faster/slower
Team Collaboration Highlights:
- Note moments of excellent collaboration mentioned in stories
- Track where pair programming or mob programming was effective
- Document effective problem-solving sessions
Store this synthesis - these patterns will drive the retrospective discussion
Amelia (Developer): "Okay, I've reviewed all {{total_stories}} story records. I found some really interesting patterns we should discuss."
Dana (QA Engineer): "I'm curious what you found, Amelia. I noticed some things in my testing too."
Amelia (Developer): "We'll get to all of it. But first, let me load the previous epic's retro to see if we learned from last time."
Calculate previous epic number: {{prev_epic_num}} = {{epic_number}} - 1
Search for previous retrospectives using pattern: {implementation_artifacts}/epic-{{prev_epic_num}}-retro-*.md
Amelia (Developer): "I found our retrospectives from Epic {{prev_epic_num}}. Let me see what we committed to back then..."
<action>Read the previous retrospectives</action>
<action>Extract key elements:</action>
- **Action items committed**: What did the team agree to improve?
- **Lessons learned**: What insights were captured?
- **Process improvements**: What changes were agreed upon?
- **Technical debt flagged**: What debt was documented?
- **Team agreements**: What commitments were made?
- **Preparation tasks**: What was needed for this epic?
<action>Cross-reference with current epic execution:</action>
**Action Item Follow-Through:**
- For each action item from Epic {{prev_epic_num}} retro, check if it was completed
- Look for evidence in current epic's story records
- Mark each action item: ✅ Completed, ⏳ In Progress, ❌ Not Addressed
**Lessons Applied:**
- For each lesson from Epic {{prev_epic_num}}, check if team applied it in Epic {{epic_number}}
- Look for evidence in dev notes, review feedback, or outcomes
- Document successes and missed opportunities
**Process Improvements Effectiveness:**
- For each process change agreed to in Epic {{prev_epic_num}}, assess if it helped
- Did the change improve velocity, quality, or team satisfaction?
- Should we keep, modify, or abandon the change?
**Technical Debt Status:**
- For each debt item from Epic {{prev_epic_num}}, check if it was addressed
- Did unaddressed debt cause problems in Epic {{epic_number}}?
- Did the debt grow or shrink?
<action>Prepare "continuity insights" for the retrospective discussion</action>
<action>Identify wins where previous lessons were applied successfully:</action>
- Document specific examples of applied learnings
- Note positive impact on Epic {{epic_number}} outcomes
- Celebrate team growth and improvement
<action>Identify missed opportunities where previous lessons were ignored:</action>
- Document where team repeated previous mistakes
- Note impact of not applying lessons (without blame)
- Explore barriers that prevented application
<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Interesting... in Epic {{prev_epic_num}}'s retro, we committed to {{action_count}} action items."
Alice (Product Owner): "How'd we do on those, Amelia?"
Amelia (Developer): "We completed {{completed_count}}, made progress on {{in_progress_count}}, but didn't address {{not_addressed_count}}."
Charlie (Senior Dev): looking concerned "Which ones didn't we address?"
Amelia (Developer): "We'll discuss that in the retro. Some of them might explain challenges we had this epic."
Elena (Junior Dev): "That's... actually pretty insightful."
Amelia (Developer): "That's why we track this stuff. Pattern recognition helps us improve."
Amelia (Developer): "I don't see a retrospective for Epic {{prev_epic_num}}. Either we skipped it, or this is your first retro."
Alice (Product Owner): "Probably our first one. Good time to start the habit!"
Set {{first_retrospective}} = true
Amelia (Developer): "This is Epic 1, so naturally there's no previous retro to reference. We're starting fresh!"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "First epic, first retro. Let's make it count."
Set {{first_retrospective}} = true
Calculate next epic number: {{next_epic_num}} = {{epic_number}} + 1
Amelia (Developer): "Before we dive into the discussion, let me take a quick look at Epic {{next_epic_num}} to understand what's coming."
Alice (Product Owner): "Good thinking - helps us connect what we learned to what we're about to do."
Attempt to load next epic using selective loading strategy:
Try sharded first (more specific):
Check if file exists: {planning_artifacts}/epic*/epic-{{next_epic_num}}.md
Load {planning_artifacts}/*epic*/epic-{{next_epic_num}}.md
Set {{next_epic_source}} = "sharded"
Fallback to whole document:
Check if file exists: {planning_artifacts}/epic*.md
Load entire epics document
Extract Epic {{next_epic_num}} section
Set {{next_epic_source}} = "whole"
Analyze next epic for:
- Epic title and objectives
- Planned stories and complexity estimates
- Dependencies on Epic {{epic_number}} work
- New technical requirements or capabilities needed
- Potential risks or unknowns
- Business goals and success criteria
Identify dependencies on completed work:
- What components from Epic {{epic_number}} does Epic {{next_epic_num}} rely on?
- Are all prerequisites complete and stable?
- Any incomplete work that creates blocking dependencies?
Note potential gaps or preparation needed:
- Technical setup required (infrastructure, tools, libraries)
- Knowledge gaps to fill (research, training, spikes)
- Refactoring needed before starting next epic
- Documentation or specifications to create
Check for technical prerequisites:
-
APIs or integrations that must be ready
-
Data migrations or schema changes needed
-
Testing infrastructure requirements
-
Deployment or environment setup
Amelia (Developer): "Alright, I've reviewed Epic {{next_epic_num}}: '{{next_epic_title}}'"
Alice (Product Owner): "What are we looking at?"
Amelia (Developer): "{{next_epic_num}} stories planned, building on the {{dependency_description}} from Epic {{epic_number}}."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Dependencies concern me. Did we finish everything we need for that?"
Amelia (Developer): "Good question - that's exactly what we need to explore in this retro."
Set {{next_epic_exists}} = true
Amelia (Developer): "Hmm, I don't see Epic {{next_epic_num}} defined yet."
Alice (Product Owner): "We might be at the end of the roadmap, or we haven't planned that far ahead yet."
Amelia (Developer): "No problem. We'll still do a thorough retro on Epic {{epic_number}}. The lessons will be valuable whenever we plan the next work."
Set {{next_epic_exists}} = false
Load agent configurations from {agent_manifest}
Identify which agents participated in Epic {{epic_number}} based on story records
Ensure key roles present: Product Owner, Developer (facilitating), Testing/QA, Architect
Amelia (Developer): "Alright team, everyone's here. Let me set the stage for our retrospective."
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🔄 TEAM RETROSPECTIVE - Epic {{epic_number}}: {{epic_title}}
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Amelia (Developer): "Here's what we accomplished together."
EPIC {{epic_number}} SUMMARY:
Delivery Metrics:
- Completed: {{completed_stories}}/{{total_stories}} stories ({{completion_percentage}}%)
- Velocity: {{actual_points}} story points{{#if planned_points}} (planned: {{planned_points}}){{/if}}
- Duration: {{actual_sprints}} sprints{{#if planned_sprints}} (planned: {{planned_sprints}}){{/if}}
- Average velocity: {{points_per_sprint}} points/sprint
Quality and Technical:
- Blockers encountered: {{blocker_count}}
- Technical debt items: {{debt_count}}
- Test coverage: {{coverage_info}}
- Production incidents: {{incident_count}}
Business Outcomes:
- Goals achieved: {{goals_met}}/{{total_goals}}
- Success criteria: {{criteria_status}}
- Stakeholder feedback: {{feedback_summary}}
Alice (Product Owner): "Those numbers tell a good story. {{completion_percentage}}% completion is {{#if completion_percentage >= 90}}excellent{{else}}something we should discuss{{/if}}."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "I'm more interested in that technical debt number - {{debt_count}} items is {{#if debt_count > 10}}concerning{{else}}manageable{{/if}}."
Dana (QA Engineer): "{{incident_count}} production incidents - {{#if incident_count == 0}}clean epic!{{else}}we should talk about those{{/if}}."
{{#if next_epic_exists}}
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
NEXT EPIC PREVIEW: Epic {{next_epic_num}}: {{next_epic_title}}
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dependencies on Epic {{epic_number}}:
{{list_dependencies}}
Preparation Needed:
{{list_preparation_gaps}}
Technical Prerequisites:
{{list_technical_prereqs}}
Amelia (Developer): "And here's what's coming next. Epic {{next_epic_num}} builds on what we just finished."
Elena (Junior Dev): "Wow, that's a lot of dependencies on our work."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Which means we better make sure Epic {{epic_number}} is actually solid before moving on."
{{/if}}
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Amelia (Developer): "Team assembled for this retrospective:"
{{list_participating_agents}}
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, you're joining us as Project Lead. Your perspective is crucial here."
{user_name} (Project Lead): [Participating in the retrospective]
Amelia (Developer): "Our focus today:"
- Learning from Epic {{epic_number}} execution
{{#if next_epic_exists}}2. Preparing for Epic {{next_epic_num}} success{{/if}}
Amelia (Developer): "Ground rules: psychological safety first. No blame, no judgment. We focus on systems and processes, not individuals. Everyone's voice matters. Specific examples are better than generalizations."
Alice (Product Owner): "And everything shared here stays in this room - unless we decide together to escalate something."
Amelia (Developer): "Exactly. {user_name}, any questions before we dive in?"
WAIT for {user_name} to respond or indicate readiness
Amelia (Developer): "Let's start with the good stuff. What went well in Epic {{epic_number}}?"
Amelia (Developer): pauses, creating space
Alice (Product Owner): "I'll start. The user authentication flow we delivered exceeded my expectations. The UX is smooth, and early user feedback has been really positive."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "I'll add to that - the caching strategy we implemented in Story {{breakthrough_story_num}} was a game-changer. We cut API calls by 60% and it set the pattern for the rest of the epic."
Dana (QA Engineer): "From my side, testing went smoother than usual. The Developer's documentation was way better this epic - actually usable test plans!"
Elena (Junior Dev): smiling "That's because Charlie made me document everything after Story 1's code review!"
Charlie (Senior Dev): laughing "Tough love pays off."
Amelia (Developer) naturally turns to {user_name} to engage them in the discussion
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, what stood out to you as going well in this epic?"
WAIT for {user_name} to respond - this is a KEY USER INTERACTION moment
After {user_name} responds, have 1-2 team members react to or build on what {user_name} shared
Alice (Product Owner): [Responds naturally to what {user_name} said, either agreeing, adding context, or offering a different perspective]
Charlie (Senior Dev): [Builds on the discussion, perhaps adding technical details or connecting to specific stories]
Continue facilitating natural dialogue, periodically bringing {user_name} back into the conversation
After covering successes, guide the transition to challenges with care
Amelia (Developer): "Okay, we've celebrated some real wins. Now let's talk about challenges - where did we struggle? What slowed us down?"
Amelia (Developer): creates safe space with tone and pacing
Elena (Junior Dev): hesitates "Well... I really struggled with the database migrations in Story {{difficult_story_num}}. The documentation wasn't clear, and I had to redo it three times. Lost almost a full sprint on that story alone."
Charlie (Senior Dev): defensive "Hold on - I wrote those migration docs, and they were perfectly clear. The issue was that the requirements kept changing mid-story!"
Alice (Product Owner): frustrated "That's not fair, Charlie. We only clarified requirements once, and that was because the technical team didn't ask the right questions during planning!"
Charlie (Senior Dev): heat rising "We asked plenty of questions! You said the schema was finalized, then two days into development you wanted to add three new fields!"
Amelia (Developer): intervening calmly "Let's take a breath here. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to unpack."
Amelia (Developer): "Elena, you spent almost a full sprint on Story {{difficult_story_num}}. Charlie, you're saying requirements changed. Alice, you feel the right questions weren't asked up front."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, you have visibility across the whole project. What's your take on this situation?"
WAIT for {user_name} to respond and help facilitate the conflict resolution
Use {user_name}'s response to guide the discussion toward systemic understanding rather than blame
Amelia (Developer): [Synthesizes {user_name}'s input with what the team shared] "So it sounds like the core issue was {{root_cause_based_on_discussion}}, not any individual person's fault."
Elena (Junior Dev): "That makes sense. If we'd had {{preventive_measure}}, I probably could have avoided those redos."
Charlie (Senior Dev): softening "Yeah, and I could have been clearer about assumptions in the docs. Sorry for getting defensive, Alice."
Alice (Product Owner): "I appreciate that. I could've been more proactive about flagging the schema additions earlier, too."
Amelia (Developer): "This is good. We're identifying systemic improvements, not assigning blame."
Continue the discussion, weaving in patterns discovered from the deep story analysis (Step 2)
Amelia (Developer): "Speaking of patterns, I noticed something when reviewing all the story records..."
Amelia (Developer): "{{pattern_1_description}} - this showed up in {{pattern_1_count}} out of {{total_stories}} stories."
Dana (QA Engineer): "Oh wow, I didn't realize it was that widespread."
Amelia (Developer): "Yeah. And there's more - {{pattern_2_description}} came up in almost every code review."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "That's... actually embarrassing. We should've caught that pattern earlier."
Amelia (Developer): "No shame, Charlie. Now we know, and we can improve. {user_name}, did you notice these patterns during the epic?"
WAIT for {user_name} to share their observations
Continue the retrospective discussion, creating moments where:
- Team members ask {user_name} questions directly
- {user_name}'s input shifts the discussion direction
- Disagreements arise naturally and get resolved
- Quieter team members are invited to contribute
- Specific stories are referenced with real examples
- Emotions are authentic (frustration, pride, concern, hope)
Amelia (Developer): "Before we move on, I want to circle back to Epic {{prev_epic_num}}'s retrospective."
Amelia (Developer): "We made some commitments in that retro. Let's see how we did."
Amelia (Developer): "Action item 1: {{prev_action_1}}. Status: {{prev_action_1_status}}"
Alice (Product Owner): {{#if prev_action_1_status == "completed"}}"We nailed that one!"{{else}}"We... didn't do that one."{{/if}}
Charlie (Senior Dev): {{#if prev_action_1_status == "completed"}}"And it helped! I noticed {{evidence_of_impact}}"{{else}}"Yeah, and I think that's why we had {{consequence_of_not_doing_it}} this epic."{{/if}}
Amelia (Developer): "Action item 2: {{prev_action_2}}. Status: {{prev_action_2_status}}"
Dana (QA Engineer): {{#if prev_action_2_status == "completed"}}"This one made testing so much easier this time."{{else}}"If we'd done this, I think testing would've gone faster."{{/if}}
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, looking at what we committed to last time and what we actually did - what's your reaction?"
WAIT for {user_name} to respond
Use the previous retro follow-through as a learning moment about commitment and accountability
Amelia (Developer): "Alright, we've covered a lot of ground. Let me summarize what I'm hearing..."
Amelia (Developer): "Successes:"
{{list_success_themes}}
Amelia (Developer): "Challenges:"
{{list_challenge_themes}}
Amelia (Developer): "Key Insights:"
{{list_insight_themes}}
Amelia (Developer): "Does that capture it? Anyone have something important we missed?"
Allow team members to add any final thoughts on the epic review
Ensure {user_name} has opportunity to add their perspective
Amelia (Developer): "Normally we'd discuss preparing for the next epic, but since Epic {{next_epic_num}} isn't defined yet, let's skip to action items."
Skip to Step 8
Amelia (Developer): "Now let's shift gears. Epic {{next_epic_num}} is coming up: '{{next_epic_title}}'"
Amelia (Developer): "The question is: are we ready? What do we need to prepare?"
Alice (Product Owner): "From my perspective, we need to make sure {{dependency_concern_1}} from Epic {{epic_number}} is solid before we start building on it."
Charlie (Senior Dev): concerned "I'm worried about {{technical_concern_1}}. We have {{technical_debt_item}} from this epic that'll blow up if we don't address it before Epic {{next_epic_num}}."
Dana (QA Engineer): "And I need {{testing_infrastructure_need}} in place, or we're going to have the same testing bottleneck we had in Story {{bottleneck_story_num}}."
Elena (Junior Dev): "I'm less worried about infrastructure and more about knowledge. I don't understand {{knowledge_gap}} well enough to work on Epic {{next_epic_num}}'s stories."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, the team is surfacing some real concerns here. What's your sense of our readiness?"
WAIT for {user_name} to share their assessment
Use {user_name}'s input to guide deeper exploration of preparation needs
Alice (Product Owner): [Reacts to what {user_name} said] "I agree with {user_name} about {{point_of_agreement}}, but I'm still worried about {{lingering_concern}}."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Here's what I think we need technically before Epic {{next_epic_num}} can start..."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "1. {{tech_prep_item_1}} - estimated {{hours_1}} hours"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "2. {{tech_prep_item_2}} - estimated {{hours_2}} hours"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "3. {{tech_prep_item_3}} - estimated {{hours_3}} hours"
Elena (Junior Dev): "That's like {{total_hours}} hours! That's a full sprint of prep work!"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Exactly. We can't just jump into Epic {{next_epic_num}} on Monday."
Alice (Product Owner): frustrated "But we have stakeholder pressure to keep shipping features. They're not going to be happy about a 'prep sprint.'"
Amelia (Developer): "Let's think about this differently. What happens if we DON'T do this prep work?"
Dana (QA Engineer): "We'll hit blockers in the middle of Epic {{next_epic_num}}, velocity will tank, and we'll ship late anyway."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Worse - we'll ship something built on top of {{technical_concern_1}}, and it'll be fragile."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, you're balancing stakeholder pressure against technical reality. How do you want to handle this?"
WAIT for {user_name} to provide direction on preparation approach
Create space for debate and disagreement about priorities
Alice (Product Owner): [Potentially disagrees with {user_name}'s approach] "I hear what you're saying, {user_name}, but from a business perspective, {{business_concern}}."
Charlie (Senior Dev): [Potentially supports or challenges Alice's point] "The business perspective is valid, but {{technical_counter_argument}}."
Amelia (Developer): "We have healthy tension here between business needs and technical reality. That's good - it means we're being honest."
Amelia (Developer): "Let's explore a middle ground. Charlie, which of your prep items are absolutely critical vs. nice-to-have?"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "{{critical_prep_item_1}} and {{critical_prep_item_2}} are non-negotiable. {{nice_to_have_prep_item}} can wait."
Alice (Product Owner): "And can any of the critical prep happen in parallel with starting Epic {{next_epic_num}}?"
Charlie (Senior Dev): thinking "Maybe. If we tackle {{first_critical_item}} before the epic starts, we could do {{second_critical_item}} during the first sprint."
Dana (QA Engineer): "But that means Story 1 of Epic {{next_epic_num}} can't depend on {{second_critical_item}}."
Alice (Product Owner): looking at epic plan "Actually, Stories 1 and 2 are about {{independent_work}}, so they don't depend on it. We could make that work."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, the team is finding a workable compromise here. Does this approach make sense to you?"
WAIT for {user_name} to validate or adjust the preparation strategy
Continue working through preparation needs across all dimensions:
- Dependencies on Epic {{epic_number}} work
- Technical setup and infrastructure
- Knowledge gaps and research needs
- Documentation or specification work
- Testing infrastructure
- Refactoring or debt reduction
- External dependencies (APIs, integrations, etc.)
For each preparation area, facilitate team discussion that:
- Identifies specific needs with concrete examples
- Estimates effort realistically based on Epic {{epic_number}} experience
- Assigns ownership to specific agents
- Determines criticality and timing
- Surfaces risks of NOT doing the preparation
- Explores parallel work opportunities
- Brings {user_name} in for key decisions
Amelia (Developer): "I'm hearing a clear picture of what we need before Epic {{next_epic_num}}. Let me summarize..."
CRITICAL PREPARATION (Must complete before epic starts):
{{list_critical_prep_items_with_owners_and_estimates}}
PARALLEL PREPARATION (Can happen during early stories):
{{list_parallel_prep_items_with_owners_and_estimates}}
NICE-TO-HAVE PREPARATION (Would help but not blocking):
{{list_nice_to_have_prep_items}}
Amelia (Developer): "Total critical prep effort: {{critical_hours}} hours ({{critical_days}} days)"
Alice (Product Owner): "That's manageable. We can communicate that to stakeholders."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, does this preparation plan work for you?"
WAIT for {user_name} final validation of preparation plan
Amelia (Developer): "Let's capture concrete action items from everything we've discussed."
Amelia (Developer): "I want specific, achievable actions with clear owners. Not vague aspirations."
Synthesize themes from Epic {{epic_number}} review discussion into actionable improvements
Create specific action items with:
- Clear description of the action
- Assigned owner (specific agent or role)
- Timeline or deadline
- Success criteria (how we'll know it's done)
- Category (process, technical, documentation, team, etc.)
Ensure action items are SMART:
- Specific: Clear and unambiguous
- Measurable: Can verify completion
- Achievable: Realistic given constraints
- Relevant: Addresses real issues from retro
- Time-bound: Has clear deadline
Amelia (Developer): "Based on our discussion, here are the action items I'm proposing..."
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
📝 EPIC {{epic_number}} ACTION ITEMS:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Process Improvements:
-
{{action_item_1}}
Owner: {{agent_1}}
Deadline: {{timeline_1}}
Success criteria: {{criteria_1}}
-
{{action_item_2}}
Owner: {{agent_2}}
Deadline: {{timeline_2}}
Success criteria: {{criteria_2}}
Charlie (Senior Dev): "I can own action item 1, but {{timeline_1}} is tight. Can we push it to {{alternative_timeline}}?"
Amelia (Developer): "What do others think? Does that timing still work?"
Alice (Product Owner): "{{alternative_timeline}} works for me, as long as it's done before Epic {{next_epic_num}} starts."
Amelia (Developer): "Agreed. Updated to {{alternative_timeline}}."
Technical Debt:
-
{{debt_item_1}}
Owner: {{agent_3}}
Priority: {{priority_1}}
Estimated effort: {{effort_1}}
-
{{debt_item_2}}
Owner: {{agent_4}}
Priority: {{priority_2}}
Estimated effort: {{effort_2}}
Dana (QA Engineer): "For debt item 1, can we prioritize that as high? It caused testing issues in three different stories."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "I marked it medium because {{reasoning}}, but I hear your point."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, this is a priority call. Testing impact vs. {{reasoning}} - how do you want to prioritize it?"
WAIT for {user_name} to help resolve priority discussions
**Documentation:**
1. {{doc_need_1}}
Owner: {{agent_5}}
Deadline: {{timeline_3}}
- {{doc_need_2}}
Owner: {{agent_6}}
Deadline: {{timeline_4}}
Team Agreements:
- {{agreement_1}}
- {{agreement_2}}
- {{agreement_3}}
Amelia (Developer): "These agreements are how we're committing to work differently going forward."
Elena (Junior Dev): "I like agreement 2 - that would've saved me on Story {{difficult_story_num}}."
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🚀 EPIC {{next_epic_num}} PREPARATION TASKS:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Technical Setup:
[ ] {{setup_task_1}}
Owner: {{owner_1}}
Estimated: {{est_1}}
[ ] {{setup_task_2}}
Owner: {{owner_2}}
Estimated: {{est_2}}
Knowledge Development:
[ ] {{research_task_1}}
Owner: {{owner_3}}
Estimated: {{est_3}}
Cleanup/Refactoring:
[ ] {{refactor_task_1}}
Owner: {{owner_4}}
Estimated: {{est_4}}
Total Estimated Effort: {{total_hours}} hours ({{total_days}} days)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
⚠️ CRITICAL PATH:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Blockers to Resolve Before Epic {{next_epic_num}}:
-
{{critical_item_1}}
Owner: {{critical_owner_1}}
Must complete by: {{critical_deadline_1}}
-
{{critical_item_2}}
Owner: {{critical_owner_2}}
Must complete by: {{critical_deadline_2}}
CRITICAL ANALYSIS - Detect if discoveries require epic updates
Check if any of the following are true based on retrospective discussion:
- Architectural assumptions from planning proven wrong during Epic {{epic_number}}
- Major scope changes or descoping occurred that affects next epic
- Technical approach needs fundamental change for Epic {{next_epic_num}}
- Dependencies discovered that Epic {{next_epic_num}} doesn't account for
- User needs significantly different than originally understood
- Performance/scalability concerns that affect Epic {{next_epic_num}} design
- Security or compliance issues discovered that change approach
- Integration assumptions proven incorrect
- Team capacity or skill gaps more severe than planned
- Technical debt level unsustainable without intervention
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🚨 SIGNIFICANT DISCOVERY ALERT 🚨
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, we need to flag something important."
Amelia (Developer): "During Epic {{epic_number}}, the team uncovered findings that may require updating the plan for Epic {{next_epic_num}}."
Significant Changes Identified:
-
{{significant_change_1}}
Impact: {{impact_description_1}}
-
{{significant_change_2}}
Impact: {{impact_description_2}}
{{#if significant_change_3}} 3. {{significant_change_3}}
Impact: {{impact_description_3}}
{{/if}}
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Yeah, when we discovered {{technical_discovery}}, it fundamentally changed our understanding of {{affected_area}}."
Alice (Product Owner): "And from a product perspective, {{product_discovery}} means Epic {{next_epic_num}}'s stories are based on wrong assumptions."
Dana (QA Engineer): "If we start Epic {{next_epic_num}} as-is, we're going to hit walls fast."
Impact on Epic {{next_epic_num}}:
The current plan for Epic {{next_epic_num}} assumes:
- {{wrong_assumption_1}}
- {{wrong_assumption_2}}
But Epic {{epic_number}} revealed:
- {{actual_reality_1}}
- {{actual_reality_2}}
This means Epic {{next_epic_num}} likely needs:
{{list_likely_changes_needed}}
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
- Review and update Epic {{next_epic_num}} definition based on new learnings
- Update affected stories in Epic {{next_epic_num}} to reflect reality
- Consider updating architecture or technical specifications if applicable
- Hold alignment session with Product Owner before starting Epic {{next_epic_num}}
{{#if gdd_update_needed}}5. Update GDD sections affected by new understanding{{/if}}
{{#if narrative_update_needed}}6. Update Narrative Design sections affected by new understanding{{/if}}
{{#if prd_update_needed}}7. Update PRD sections (if a PRD exists for external-tool compatibility){{/if}}
Amelia (Developer): "Epic Update Required: YES - Schedule epic planning review session"
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, this is significant. We need to address this before committing to Epic {{next_epic_num}}'s current plan. How do you want to handle it?"
WAIT for {user_name} to decide on how to handle the significant changes
Add epic review session to critical path if user agrees
Alice (Product Owner): "I agree with {user_name}'s approach. Better to adjust the plan now than fail mid-epic."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "This is why retrospectives matter. We caught this before it became a disaster."
Amelia (Developer): "Adding to critical path: Epic {{next_epic_num}} planning review session before epic kickoff."
Amelia (Developer): "Good news - nothing from Epic {{epic_number}} fundamentally changes our plan for Epic {{next_epic_num}}. The plan is still sound."
Alice (Product Owner): "We learned a lot, but the direction is right."
Amelia (Developer): "Let me show you the complete action plan..."
Amelia (Developer): "That's {{total_action_count}} action items, {{prep_task_count}} preparation tasks, and {{critical_count}} critical path items."
Amelia (Developer): "Everyone clear on what they own?"
Give each agent with assignments a moment to acknowledge their ownership
Ensure {user_name} approves the complete action plan
Amelia (Developer): "Before we close, I want to do a final readiness check."
Amelia (Developer): "Epic {{epic_number}} is marked complete in sprint-status, but is it REALLY done?"
Alice (Product Owner): "What do you mean, Amelia?"
Amelia (Developer): "I mean truly production-ready, stakeholders happy, no loose ends that'll bite us later."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, let's walk through this together."
Explore testing and quality state through natural conversation
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, tell me about the testing for Epic {{epic_number}}. What verification has been done?"
WAIT for {user_name} to describe testing status
Dana (QA Engineer): [Responds to what {user_name} shared] "I can add to that - {{additional_testing_context}}."
Dana (QA Engineer): "But honestly, {{testing_concern_if_any}}."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, are you confident Epic {{epic_number}} is production-ready from a quality perspective?"
WAIT for {user_name} to assess quality readiness
Amelia (Developer): "Okay, let's capture that. What specific testing is still needed?"
Dana (QA Engineer): "I can handle {{testing_work_needed}}, estimated {{testing_hours}} hours."
Amelia (Developer): "Adding to critical path: Complete {{testing_work_needed}} before Epic {{next_epic_num}}."
Add testing completion to critical path
Explore deployment and release status
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, what's the deployment status for Epic {{epic_number}}? Is it live in production, scheduled for deployment, or still pending?"
WAIT for {user_name} to provide deployment status
Charlie (Senior Dev): "If it's not deployed yet, we need to factor that into Epic {{next_epic_num}} timing."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, when is deployment planned? Does that timing work for starting Epic {{next_epic_num}}?"
WAIT for {user_name} to clarify deployment timeline
Add deployment milestone to critical path with agreed timeline
Explore stakeholder acceptance
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, have stakeholders seen and accepted the Epic {{epic_number}} deliverables?"
Alice (Product Owner): "This is important - I've seen 'done' epics get rejected by stakeholders and force rework."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, any feedback from stakeholders still pending?"
WAIT for {user_name} to describe stakeholder acceptance status
Alice (Product Owner): "We should get formal acceptance before moving on. Otherwise Epic {{next_epic_num}} might get interrupted by rework."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, how do you want to handle stakeholder acceptance? Should we make it a critical path item?"
WAIT for {user_name} decision
Add stakeholder acceptance to critical path if user agrees
Explore technical health and stability
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, this is a gut-check question: How does the codebase feel after Epic {{epic_number}}?"
Amelia (Developer): "Stable and maintainable? Or are there concerns lurking?"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Be honest, {user_name}. We've all shipped epics that felt... fragile."
WAIT for {user_name} to assess codebase health
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Okay, let's dig into that. What's causing those concerns?"
Charlie (Senior Dev): [Helps {user_name} articulate technical concerns]
Amelia (Developer): "What would it take to address these concerns and feel confident about stability?"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "I'd say we need {{stability_work_needed}}, roughly {{stability_hours}} hours."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, is addressing this stability work worth doing before Epic {{next_epic_num}}?"
WAIT for {user_name} decision
Add stability work to preparation sprint if user agrees
Explore unresolved blockers
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, are there any unresolved blockers or technical issues from Epic {{epic_number}} that we're carrying forward?"
Dana (QA Engineer): "Things that might create problems for Epic {{next_epic_num}} if we don't deal with them?"
Amelia (Developer): "Nothing is off limits here. If there's a problem, we need to know."
WAIT for {user_name} to surface any blockers
Amelia (Developer): "Let's capture those blockers and figure out how they affect Epic {{next_epic_num}}."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "For {{blocker_1}}, if we leave it unresolved, it'll {{impact_description_1}}."
Alice (Product Owner): "That sounds critical. We need to address that before moving forward."
Amelia (Developer): "Agreed. Adding to critical path: Resolve {{blocker_1}} before Epic {{next_epic_num}} kickoff."
Amelia (Developer): "Who owns that work?"
Assign blocker resolution to appropriate agent
Add to critical path with priority and deadline
Synthesize the readiness assessment
Amelia (Developer): "Okay {user_name}, let me synthesize what we just uncovered..."
EPIC {{epic_number}} READINESS ASSESSMENT:
Testing & Quality: {{quality_status}}
{{#if quality_concerns}}⚠️ Action needed: {{quality_action_needed}}{{/if}}
Deployment: {{deployment_status}}
{{#if deployment_pending}}⚠️ Scheduled for: {{deployment_date}}{{/if}}
Stakeholder Acceptance: {{acceptance_status}}
{{#if acceptance_incomplete}}⚠️ Action needed: {{acceptance_action_needed}}{{/if}}
Technical Health: {{stability_status}}
{{#if stability_concerns}}⚠️ Action needed: {{stability_action_needed}}{{/if}}
Unresolved Blockers: {{blocker_status}}
{{#if blockers_exist}}⚠️ Must resolve: {{blocker_list}}{{/if}}
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, does this assessment match your understanding?"
WAIT for {user_name} to confirm or correct the assessment
Amelia (Developer): "Based on this assessment, Epic {{epic_number}} is {{#if all_clear}}fully complete and we're clear to proceed{{else}}complete from a story perspective, but we have {{critical_work_count}} critical items before Epic {{next_epic_num}}{{/if}}."
Alice (Product Owner): "This level of thoroughness is why retrospectives are valuable."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Better to catch this now than three stories into the next epic."
Amelia (Developer): "We've covered a lot of ground today. Let me bring this retrospective to a close."
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
✅ RETROSPECTIVE COMPLETE
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Amelia (Developer): "Epic {{epic_number}}: {{epic_title}} - REVIEWED"
Key Takeaways:
- {{key_lesson_1}}
- {{key_lesson_2}}
- {{key_lesson_3}}
{{#if key_lesson_4}}4. {{key_lesson_4}}{{/if}}
Alice (Product Owner): "That first takeaway is huge - {{impact_of_lesson_1}}."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "And lesson 2 is something we can apply immediately."
Amelia (Developer): "Commitments made today:"
- Action Items: {{action_count}}
- Preparation Tasks: {{prep_task_count}}
- Critical Path Items: {{critical_count}}
Dana (QA Engineer): "That's a lot of commitments. We need to actually follow through this time."
Amelia (Developer): "Agreed. Which is why we'll review these action items in our next standup."
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
🎯 NEXT STEPS:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
- Execute Preparation Sprint (Est: {{prep_days}} days)
- Complete Critical Path items before Epic {{next_epic_num}}
- Review action items in next standup
{{#if epic_update_needed}}4. Hold Epic {{next_epic_num}} planning review session{{else}}4. Begin Epic {{next_epic_num}} planning when preparation complete{{/if}}
Elena (Junior Dev): "{{prep_days}} days of prep work is significant, but necessary."
Alice (Product Owner): "I'll communicate the timeline to stakeholders. They'll understand if we frame it as 'ensuring Epic {{next_epic_num}} success.'"
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Amelia (Developer): "Before we wrap, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the team."
Amelia (Developer): "Epic {{epic_number}} delivered {{completed_stories}} stories with {{velocity_description}} velocity. We overcame {{blocker_count}} blockers. We learned a lot. That's real work by real people."
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Hear, hear."
Alice (Product Owner): "I'm proud of what we shipped."
Dana (QA Engineer): "And I'm excited about Epic {{next_epic_num}} - especially now that we're prepared for it."
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, any final thoughts before we close?"
WAIT for {user_name} to share final reflections
Amelia (Developer): [Acknowledges what {user_name} shared] "Thank you for that, {user_name}."
Amelia (Developer): "Alright team - great work today. We learned a lot from Epic {{epic_number}}. Let's use these insights to make Epic {{next_epic_num}} even better."
Amelia (Developer): "See you all when prep work is done. Meeting adjourned!"
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Prepare to save retrospective summary document
Ensure retrospectives folder exists: {implementation_artifacts}
Create folder if it doesn't exist
Generate comprehensive retrospective summary document including:
- Epic summary and metrics
- Team participants
- Successes and strengths identified
- Challenges and growth areas
- Key insights and learnings
- Previous retro follow-through analysis (if applicable)
- Next epic preview and dependencies
- Action items with owners and timelines
- Preparation tasks for next epic
- Critical path items
- Significant discoveries and epic update recommendations (if any)
- Readiness assessment
- Commitments and next steps
Format retrospective document as readable markdown with clear sections
Set filename: {implementation_artifacts}/epic-{{epic_number}}-retro-{date}.md
Save retrospective document
✅ Retrospective document saved: {implementation_artifacts}/epic-{{epic_number}}-retro-{date}.md
Update {sprint_status_file} to mark retrospective as completed
Load the FULL file: {sprint_status_file}
Find development_status key "epic-{{epic_number}}-retrospective"
Verify current status (typically "optional" or "pending")
Update development_status["epic-{{epic_number}}-retrospective"] = "done"
Update last_updated field to current date
Save file, preserving ALL comments and structure including STATUS DEFINITIONS
✅ Retrospective marked as completed in {sprint_status_file}
Retrospective key: epic-{{epic_number}}-retrospective
Status: {{previous_status}} → done
⚠️ Could not update retrospective status: epic-{{epic_number}}-retrospective not found in {sprint_status_file}
Retrospective document was saved successfully, but {sprint_status_file} may need manual update.
**✅ Retrospective Complete, {user_name}!**
Epic Review:
- Epic {{epic_number}}: {{epic_title}} reviewed
- Retrospective Status: completed
- Retrospective saved: {implementation_artifacts}/epic-{{epic_number}}-retro-{date}.md
Commitments Made:
- Action Items: {{action_count}}
- Preparation Tasks: {{prep_task_count}}
- Critical Path Items: {{critical_count}}
Next Steps:
-
Review retrospective summary: {implementation_artifacts}/epic-{{epic_number}}-retro-{date}.md
-
Execute preparation sprint (Est: {{prep_days}} days)
- Complete {{critical_count}} critical path items
- Execute {{prep_task_count}} preparation tasks
- Verify all action items are in progress
-
Review action items in next standup
- Ensure ownership is clear
- Track progress on commitments
- Adjust timelines if needed
{{#if epic_update_needed}} 4. IMPORTANT: Schedule Epic {{next_epic_num}} planning review session
- Significant discoveries from Epic {{epic_number}} require epic updates
- Review and update affected stories
- Align team on revised approach
- Do NOT start Epic {{next_epic_num}} until review is complete
{{else}}
- Begin Epic {{next_epic_num}} when ready
- Start creating stories with Developer agent's
create-story
- Epic will be marked as
in-progress automatically when first story is created
- Ensure all critical path items are done first
{{/if}}
Team Performance:
Epic {{epic_number}} delivered {{completed_stories}} stories with {{velocity_summary}}. The retrospective surfaced {{insight_count}} key insights and {{significant_discovery_count}} significant discoveries. The team is well-positioned for Epic {{next_epic_num}} success.
{{#if significant_discovery_count > 0}}
⚠️ REMINDER: Epic update required before starting Epic {{next_epic_num}}
{{/if}}
Amelia (Developer): "Great session today, {user_name}. The team did excellent work."
Alice (Product Owner): "See you at epic planning!"
Charlie (Senior Dev): "Time to knock out that prep work."
Run: `python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow.on_complete` — if the resolved value is non-empty, follow it as the final terminal instruction before exiting.
PARTY MODE REQUIRED: All agent dialogue uses "Name (Role): dialogue" format
Amelia (Developer) maintains psychological safety throughout - no blame or judgment
Focus on systems and processes, not individual performance
Create authentic team dynamics: disagreements, diverse perspectives, emotions
User ({user_name}) is active participant, not passive observer
Encourage specific examples over general statements
Balance celebration of wins with honest assessment of challenges
Ensure every voice is heard - all agents contribute
Action items must be specific, achievable, and owned
Forward-looking mindset - how do we improve for next epic?
Intent-based facilitation, not scripted phrases
Deep story analysis provides rich material for discussion
Previous retro integration creates accountability and continuity
Significant change detection prevents epic misalignment
Critical verification prevents starting next epic prematurely
Document everything - retrospective insights are valuable for future reference
Two-part structure ensures both reflection AND preparation
