reviews-retros-reflection
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/reviews-retros-reflectionFacilitates structured team reflection and generates SMART action items.
- Enables retrospectives, post-mortems, and weekly reviews with psychological safety.
- Depends on user intent keywords like retro, lessons learned, or how can we improve.
- Decides execution by matching context to sprint, project, or quarterly cycles.
- Delivers root cause analysis and follow-up commitments through a five-step workflow.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/reviews-retros-reflectionView on GitHub ↗
--- name: reviews-retros-reflection description: Facilitates structured team reflection through retrospectives, post-mortems, after-action reviews, and weekly/quarterly reviews, producing root cause analysis and SMART action items with psychological safety. Use when conducting sprint retrospectives, project post-mortems, weekly reviews, quarterly reflections, after-action reviews (AARs), or when user mentions "retro", "retrospective", "what went well", "lessons learned", "reflection", or "how can we improve". --- # Reviews, Retros & Reflection ## Table of Contents 1. [Workflow](#workflow) 2. [Retrospective Formats](#retrospective-formats) 3. [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) 4. [Guardrails](#guardrails) 5. [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Retrospective Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Set the stage (context, psychological safety) - [ ] Step 2: Gather data (what happened) - [ ] Step 3: Generate insights (why it happened) - [ ] Step 4: Decide actions (what to change) - [ ] Step 5: Close and follow up (commit, track) ``` **Step 1: Set the stage** Define period/scope, review previous action items, establish psychological safety (Prime Directive: "everyone did best job given knowledge/skills/resources/context"). For quick reviews → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md). For complex team retros → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md). **Step 2: Gather data** Collect facts about period: metrics (velocity, bugs, incidents), events (launches, blockers, decisions), sentiment (team energy, morale). See [Retrospective Formats](#retrospective-formats) for collection methods. **Step 3: Generate insights** Identify patterns, root causes, surprises. Ask "why?" to move from symptoms to causes. Use [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for root cause techniques (5 Whys, fishbone diagrams, timeline analysis). **Step 4: Decide actions** Vote on most impactful improvements (dot voting, SMART criteria). Define 1-3 SMART actions (Specific, Measurable, Assigned owner, Realistic, Time-bound). See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for action quality criteria. **Step 5: Close and follow up** Commit to actions, schedule check-in, thank participants. Track action completion rate (target: >80% completion before next retro). Self-check using `resources/evaluators/rubric_reviews_retros_reflection.json` before closing. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5. ## Retrospective Formats **Start/Stop/Continue (Simple, Balanced):** - **Start**: What should we begin doing? - **Stop**: What should we stop doing? - **Continue**: What's working well, keep doing? - **When**: General purpose, new teams, tight on time (30 min) **Mad/Sad/Glad (Emotion-Focused):** - **Mad**: What frustrated or angered you? - **Sad**: What disappointed you? - **Glad**: What made you happy? - **When**: Processing difficult period, improving morale, surfacing hidden issues **4Ls (Comprehensive):** - **Loved**: What did we love? - **Learned**: What did we learn? - **Lacked**: What did we lack? - **Longed for**: What did we long for? - **When**: End of major project, quarterly reviews, want depth **Sailboat/Speedboat (Metaphor-Based):** - **Wind** (helping): What's propelling us forward? - **Anchor** (hindering): What's slowing us down? - **Rocks** (risks): What dangers lie ahead? - **Island** (goal): Where are we going? - **When**: Strategic planning, visualizing progress, cross-functional teams **Timeline (Chronological):** - Plot events on timeline, mark highs/lows, identify patterns - **When**: Long period (quarter), complex project, need shared understanding ## Common Patterns **Pattern 1: Sprint Retrospective (Agile)** - **Frequency**: Every 1-2 weeks - **Duration**: 45-90 min (shorter sprints = shorter retros) - **Focus**: Process improvements, team dynamics, technical practices - **Format**: Start/Stop/Continue or Mad/Sad/Glad - **Actions**: 1-3 process improvements, 1 technical improvement **Pattern 2: Project Post-Mortem** - **Frequency**: End of project/phase - **Duration**: 90-120 min - **Focus**: What to repeat, what to avoid, systemic issues - **Format**: 4Ls or Timeline - **Actions**: Documentation updates, playbook changes, skill gaps to address **Pattern 3: Weekly Team Review** - **Frequency**: Weekly (Fridays common) - **Duration**: 15-30 min - **Focus**: Wins, blockers, priorities for next week - **Format**: Custom (Wins/Blockers/Priorities) - **Actions**: Blocker removal, celebrate wins, align on top 3 priorities **Pattern 4: Incident Retrospective** - **Frequency**: After major incidents - **Duration**: 60 min - **Focus**: Blameless analysis, system improvements - **Format**: Timeline + 5 Whys - **Actions**: Incident response improvements, monitoring/alerting, prevention ## Guardrails **Psychological safety:** - **Prime Directive**: "Regardless of what we discover, we understand and truly believe that everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew at the time, their skills and abilities, the resources available, and the situation at hand." - Focus on processes/systems, not people - No blame, no judgment, no defensiveness - Encourage dissenting opinions - What's said in retro stays in retro (unless actionable for others) **Quality standards:** - **Action items are SMART**: Specific, Measurable, Assigned, Realistic, Time-bound - **Track completion**: >80% action completion before next retro (if <80%, too many actions or not committed) - **Rotate facilitator**: Different person each time, prevents bias - **Time-box discussions**: Don't get stuck, move on, revisit if time - **Vote for focus**: Use dot voting to prioritize discussion topics **Common pitfalls to avoid:** - **Too many actions**: >5 actions = none get done. Focus on 1-3 high-impact items. - **Vague actions**: "Improve communication" → ❌. "Daily 15-min standup in #eng-sync by Monday" → ✓ - **No follow-up**: Actions from last retro ignored → trust erodes, retros become theater - **Blame culture**: Pointing fingers → people stop being honest - **Same issues every retro**: If no progress on recurring issues, escalate to leadership ## Quick Reference **Resources:** - **Quick retro formats**: [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) - **Facilitation techniques**: [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) - **Quality rubric**: `resources/evaluators/rubric_reviews_retros_reflection.json` **5-Stage Process**: Set Stage → Gather Data → Generate Insights → Decide Actions → Close **Top Formats**: - **Start/Stop/Continue**: General purpose, 30 min - **Mad/Sad/Glad**: Emotion processing, 45 min - **4Ls**: Deep reflection, 60 min - **Sailboat**: Visual/strategic, 60 min **Action Quality**: SMART criteria + <5 total + >80% completion rate **Psychological Safety**: Prime Directive + Blameless + Confidential
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".