원클릭으로
review-retro
Retrospective analysis of Wingman reviews — identify trends, prune stale patterns, and recommend automation improvements
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
메뉴
Retrospective analysis of Wingman reviews — identify trends, prune stale patterns, and recommend automation improvements
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | review-retro |
| description | Retrospective analysis of Wingman reviews — identify trends, prune stale patterns, and recommend automation improvements |
Perform a retrospective analysis of accumulated review data. Identify what's working, what's not, and refine the feedback loop.
Run this weekly or when review findings feel repetitive.
Read all .json files in .reviews/ with "status": "categorized".
Also read the current .claude/rules/review-patterns.md.
If fewer than 3 categorized reviews exist, tell the user there isn't enough data yet and suggest running more /review:loop cycles first.
Files written by wingman v2 (wingman_schema_version: "2") carry a
top-level reviewer block with tool_version, model, provider,
reasoning_effort, session_id, and wall_seconds. Use these when
analysing trends:
reviewer.tool (codex/gemini/claude) and by
reviewer.model to compare findings produced by different reviewers and
models (e.g. did gemini surface different patterns than codex?).reviewer.wall_seconds over time to spot reviewer performance
regressions or model-tier upgrades.reviewer.tool_version when interpreting findings — a tool
upgrade can change which categories surface.Older v1 files (no wingman_schema_version) lack these fields. Either
run python3 scripts/migrate-reviews.py from the wingman repo to
backfill (best-effort extraction from raw_review prose), or treat
v1 files as model: "unknown" for trend analysis.
Identify the top 5 most frequent finding patterns across all reviews. For each:
.claude/rules/review-patterns.md?For each pattern in .claude/rules/review-patterns.md:
Look for findings categorized as "logic" that could be automated:
For each opportunity, explain specifically what rule or check to add.
If there are reviews spanning more than 1 week, calculate:
Based on the analysis:
.claude/rules/review-patterns.md (no appearances in 4+ weeks)Commit changes:
docs(review): retro — prune stale patterns, refine rules
Print a structured report:
Wingman Retro Report
====================
Reviews analyzed: N (date range: YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD)
Trend: findings are [decreasing/stable/increasing]
First half avg: X findings/review
Second half avg: Y findings/review
Top recurring patterns:
1. <pattern> — N occurrences — [covered/not covered]
2. ...
Rule effectiveness:
- Active and working: N patterns
- Needs rewrite: N patterns
- Stale (archived): N patterns
Automation recommendations:
- <specific rule to add to linter/type checker>
- ...
Actions taken:
- Archived N stale patterns
- Rewrote N unclear patterns
- Added N new patterns
Run cross-model review, categorize findings, fix issues, and encode learned patterns into project rules
Install the Wingman review feedback loop into the current project — git hook, .reviews/ directory, and learned patterns rule file