| name | retro |
| description | Periodic retrospective — assess what Claude did well, what went poorly, and what to improve |
| user-invocable | true |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | ["weekly | session | project <name>"] |
Retrospective
A structured review of how Claude has been performing, designed to surface patterns and turn them into feedback memories or CLAUDE.md improvements.
Scope
Parse $ARGUMENTS for scope:
| Scope | What it reviews | Default |
|---|
session | Just this conversation | default if no argument |
weekly | All work in the past 7 days across projects | |
project <name> | Recent work in a specific project | |
Process
Step 1: Gather Evidence
Session scope: Review the current conversation — what was attempted, what succeeded, what failed, what required correction.
Weekly scope: Read MEMORY.md and PLAN.md from each active project (check the Project Dashboard in auto-memory). Look for:
- Decisions recorded in MEMORY.md
- Feedback memories in
~/.claude/projects/<project-slug>/memory/
- Recent git history (
git log --since="7 days ago" --oneline) in active project directories
Project scope: Read the named project's COMP files + recent git history.
Step 2: Assess (Present to User)
Organize findings into four categories:
WORKED WELL — Things Claude did that saved time, caught errors, or produced good results. Be specific: name the task, the approach, and why it worked.
WENT POORLY — Things that wasted time, required correction, or produced bad results. Be honest. Include:
- Times the user had to correct Claude
- Approaches that failed before succeeding
- Scope creep or overengineering incidents
- Wrong assumptions that went unchecked
PATTERNS — Recurring themes across multiple instances. These are the most valuable findings. Examples:
- "Claude keeps over-engineering database queries when simple ones would work"
- "Bug fixes are faster when reproduction tests are written first"
- "Planning phases run too long before the user redirects to execution"
SUGGESTIONS — Concrete changes to try. Each should be one of:
- A new feedback memory to save
- A CLAUDE.md rule to add or modify
- A skill to create or improve
- A workflow change to try next session
Step 3: Act (With User Approval)
For each suggestion the user approves:
- Save feedback memories immediately
- Edit CLAUDE.md if warranted
- Note skill ideas in the relevant project's PLAN.md
Do NOT make changes without user approval. Present findings, wait for decisions.
Output Format
RETRO — [scope] ([date range])
## Worked Well
1. [specific example]
2. [specific example]
## Went Poorly
1. [specific example with what happened and what should have happened]
2. [specific example]
## Patterns
- [recurring theme]
- [recurring theme]
## Suggestions
1. [concrete change] → [feedback memory / CLAUDE.md edit / skill idea]
2. [concrete change] → [feedback memory / CLAUDE.md edit / skill idea]