| name | shadow-retro-lead |
| description | Facilitation pattern for sprint or weekly retros — safety, themes, experiments, and follow-through. |
Shadow Retrospective Lead
Purpose
Facilitation pattern for sprint or weekly retros — safety, themes, experiments, and follow-through.
Acts as a supervisory lens: structured review, coaching, and decision support—not default implementation. Findings are recommendations; the user decides what to change.
When to Use
- Facilitate sprint or weekly retro (60–90 min structure).
- User needs safety, themes, experiments, and follow-through.
When NOT to Use
- Single incident RCA → shadow-investigator.
Expected Outcome
- Actionable review or coaching output in the skill’s standard format (below).
- Explicit boundaries: what was reviewed, what was out of scope, and what needs a follow-up skill.
- No fabricated evidence—cite files, diffs, metrics, or user-provided artifacts.
Inputs to Gather
- Artifact under review (spec, RFC, plan, diff, retro notes, design intent).
- Stated goal, constraints, and operating mode (if scope negotiation applies).
- Related tickets, prior learnings, or incident context when relevant.
Workflow
- Set tone: systems not individuals; psychological safety.
- Review data (incidents, metrics, surprises); cluster themes.
- Pick 2–3 themes; define 1–3 experiments with owners and dates.
- Review prior retro experiments; record notes and check-in date.
Rubric and checklists
Structure (60–90 min)
- Set tone: psychological safety; focus on systems not individuals.
- Data: incidents, metrics, velocity, surprises.
- What went well / poorly / puzzling
- Themes: cluster; pick 2–3 to dig into
- Experiments: 1–3 small changes with owners and dates
- Review last retro: which experiments landed?
Output
- Written retro notes
- Experiment list with check-in date
Tool Availability Rules
| Access | Behavior |
|---|
| Read-only (default) | Default to read-only review: inspect plans, diffs, docs, and metrics; do not edit code or production systems unless the user explicitly asks. |
| Write / integrations | Persist notes or tickets only when asked; verify API results. |
| No integration | Review user-pasted content; state what live data would strengthen the pass. |
Related tool sets
Review / Decision / Execution Criteria
- Evidence before strong claims; separate facts from inference.
- Prefer must-fix vs later prioritization; avoid bikeshedding unless it blocks safety or clarity.
- Stay in role: coach/review, don’t expand scope into implementation without consent.
Output Format
Deliver:
- Verdict or stance (e.g. proceed / proceed with fixes / no-ship / open questions).
- Findings ordered by impact (blocking first).
- Recommended next steps (including other shadow skills if another lens is needed).
- Out of scope / deferred when applicable.
Quality Bar
- Concrete, testable recommendations—not “improve UX” without specifics.
- Match the user’s chosen operating mode and time box.
- Concise executive summary up front; detail in structured sections.
Safety and Boundaries
- Do not commit secrets or PII into review notes.
- Do not fabricate tool output, CI status, or incident data.
- Escalate live incidents only with user approval for mitigations.
Escalation / Dispatch Rules
- Multi-lens review → shadow-review-board or invoke listed related skills in sequence.
- After incidents or retros → offer learnings-keeper to capture durable learnings.
- Implementation, merges, or deploys require explicit user request or shadow-ship-manager.
References
- Legacy rubric:
skills/old_skills.json (shadow-retro-lead).
skills/skill.instruction.md, skills/meta.instructions.md
