mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
62 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
62 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
trigger: model_decision
|
|
description: "Analyses sprint delivery data and produces a structured retrospective brief. Use when asked to run a retrospective, analyse sprint data, prepare a retro brief, or turn sprint metrics into discussion prompts. Produces a data-grounded retrospective brief with completion stats, pattern analysis, Start/Stop/Continue prompts, and one concrete experiment for next sprint."
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Retrospective Analysis Skill
|
|
|
|
Generate a data-grounded retrospective brief that separates facts from feelings, so the team spends retro time on solutions rather than debating what happened.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
|
- **Sprint tickets: planned vs. completed**
|
|
- **Carry-over tickets and reasons** (if known)
|
|
- **Tickets reopened after closing** (quality signal)
|
|
- **Any incidents or unplanned work** (scope creep signal)
|
|
- **Sprint velocity vs. historical average** (trend context)
|
|
|
|
## Process
|
|
1. Calculate: completion rate, carry-over rate, unplanned work percentage
|
|
2. Identify patterns: which ticket types were most likely to carry over? Which caused blockers?
|
|
3. Note any process or communication breakdowns visible in the data
|
|
4. Prepare 3 "Start / Stop / Continue" prompts based on the data — not generic, specific to this sprint
|
|
5. Suggest 1 concrete experiment for the next sprint based on the biggest friction point
|
|
6. **Validate** — Confirm each prompt is specific to this sprint (not a recycled generic prompt), and that the recommended experiment is concrete and measurable
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### Sprint [Number] Retrospective Brief
|
|
|
|
**By the Numbers:**
|
|
- Planned: [n] tickets | Completed: [n] | Carry-over: [n] | Completion rate: [%]
|
|
- Unplanned work: [n] tickets ([%] of capacity)
|
|
- Velocity: [points] vs. [average] average
|
|
|
|
**What the Data Suggests:**
|
|
[2-3 observations grounded in the numbers above]
|
|
|
|
**Discussion Prompts:**
|
|
- Start: [specific prompt based on this sprint's data]
|
|
- Stop: [specific prompt based on this sprint's data]
|
|
- Continue: [specific prompt based on this sprint's data]
|
|
|
|
**Suggested Experiment for Next Sprint:**
|
|
[One concrete, testable process change — with a specific success metric]
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Each Start/Stop/Continue prompt names a specific behaviour, not a vague category
|
|
- [ ] The recommended experiment is testable in one sprint
|
|
- [ ] Carry-over analysis identifies the ticket type or cause, not just the count
|
|
- [ ] Data observations don't assign blame — they describe patterns
|
|
- [ ] Velocity trend is mentioned in context (is this a one-off or a pattern?)
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not assign blame to individuals in the retrospective brief — observations must describe patterns, not people
|
|
- [ ] Do not produce Start/Stop/Continue prompts that are vague categories — each must name a specific behaviour
|
|
- [ ] Do not recommend an experiment that cannot be completed within one sprint — small, testable experiments only
|
|
- [ ] Do not treat carry-over tickets as a velocity problem without first identifying the root cause category
|
|
- [ ] Do not run the same retrospective format every sprint — vary the format to prevent engagement fatigue
|