insight-retro
Skill15 starsChanged 16 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Post-implementation retrospective — map blast radius, audit documentation, extract skills, update KIs, document lessons learned. Trigger when the user runs /retro or asks for a "retrospective", "post-mortem", "lessons learned", or "what changed" after completing significant implementation work. Use insight-skill-gap when the goal is specifically to identify new or updated skills.
In this repository95 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- llms.txtllms.txt
- agent-mailboxSkill
- agent-outputSkill
- ask-gateSkill
- ask-meSkill
- audit-coupled-constantSkill
- budget-checkSkill
- build-prototypeSkill
- caller-optionsSkill
- cold-reviewSkill
- debug-taskSkill
- define-termsSkill
- defuddleSkill
- design-an-interfaceSkill
- diff-recapSkill
- directives-auditSkill
- domain-checkSkill
- double-checkSkill
- extract-signalSkill
- freshness-contractSkill
- github-syncSkill
- handoff-executeSkill
- handoffSkill
- headless-claudeSkill
- headless-codexSkill
- headless-geminiSkill
- headless-grokSkill
- headless-modelsSkill
- headless-update-modelsSkill
- headless-usageSkill
- human-drawSkill
- human-mergeSkill
- human-outputSkill
- human-rewriteSkill
- implement-taskSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- insight-adversarialSkill
- insight-anglesSkill
- insight-assessSkill
- insight-critiqueSkill
- insight-cross-examineSkill
- insight-exploreSkill
- insight-premortemSkill
- insight-reference-classSkill
- insight-root-causeSkill
- insight-skill-gapSkill
- insight-test-assumptionSkill
- insight-value-of-informationSkill
- investigateSkill
- json-canvasSkill
- map-checkSkill
- map-initSkill
- map-maintainSkill
- map-rulesSkill
- map-thisSkill
- monorepo-depsSkill
- multi-agent-modeSkill
- next-skillsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 66
README accuracy: verify prose against current code — described APIs still accurate?
- Distinctive: line 85
Verify no existing skill covers the domain via skill-search first — never propose a duplicate.
- Distinctive: line 111
MUST check skill-index first when finding reusable patterns — avoid proposing duplicates
- Distinctive: line 112
MUST include skill name, domain family, and estimated content scope when proposing new skills
- Distinctive: line 113
MUST propose concrete follow-up when identifying tech debt — not vague observations
- Very specific: line 114
MUST apply significance criteria (>100 LOC, public API, component/hook/route handler/schema) when assessing sidecars
- Distinctive: line 115
MUST cite both the doc claim and the contradicting code when finding MISLEADING docs
- Distinctive: line 116
MUST NOT fix issues in-line — retro is observation only.
- Distinctive: line 117
SHOULD propose creating high-reuse skills immediately after retro
- Distinctive: line 118
SHOULD streamline the report to essentials only when blast radius is small (<5 files)
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
/retro
Structured reflection after completing large implementations — map what changed, verify documentation accuracy, capture reusable patterns, update knowledge, and flag follow-up work.
Structured execution spec:
protocol.yon. Read it for the canonical rules and step sequence; this file is explanation. The two must stay in sync — if you edit one, update the other and refresh the@STAMPdate.
Reflection Protocol — run after shipping significant work. Prevents knowledge loss, documentation drift, and tech debt accumulation. Observation only — fixes are separate tasks.
Phase 1 — Blast Radius Mapping
Identify everything that changed during execution. Sources: implementation_plan.md, walkthrough.md, task.md, conversation history, git diff.
Produce a structured manifest:
- Packages touched
- Apps touched
- Files created / modified / deleted
- New exports or APIs introduced
Group changes by package/app. This map drives every subsequent phase.
Gate: cannot proceed without knowing what changed.
Phase 2 — Pattern Extraction
Identify reusable patterns that emerged. Check for: new architectural patterns used in 2+ places; workarounds or gotchas future work will hit; integration patterns between packages not yet documented; novel solutions worth codifying.
For each pattern: name, description, reuse potential (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW), recommended action (new skill, update existing skill, document in KI, or skip).
Phase 3 — Documentation Audit
For each package/app in the blast radius, audit all documentation surfaces.
Discovery: find README.md, llms.txt, index.yon, *.yon, *.feature.yon, CHANGELOG.md, barrel exports (index.ts).
- For docs/skills repositories: also check
SKILL.mdfiles (description quality, runtime parity), cross-reference maps between skills, per-skill front-matter consistency. Consider a full library-audit pass.
Discover the repository’s actual documentation contract first. Apply the following sidecar thresholds only where that convention is adopted or requested; elsewhere inspect the actual local obligations, without treating absent YON sidecars as defects.
Sidecar audit under that adopted convention: for each significant changed file (>100 LOC, public API, component/hook/route handler/schema) — does a colocated .yon exist? Still accurate? Should one be created?
- New directories with >3 significant files → flag missing
index.yon - Cross-file features touching >2 related files → flag missing
*.feature.yon
README accuracy: verify prose against current code — described APIs still accurate? New features documented? Removed features still mentioned?
Report by severity:
- MISLEADING — docs say X, code does Y (cite both the doc claim and contradicting code)
- STALE — docs describe removed features
- MISSING — new features/files undocumented
- ACCURATE — no action
Phase 4 — Knowledge & Skill Assessment
Knowledge Items: cross-reference changes against existing KI summaries. Report KIs to update (with what changed), KIs to create (with proposed scope), KIs still accurate (no action).
Skills: Resolve a supplied or current host/repository skill catalog and record its scope. If unavailable, keep proposals provisional with duplicate coverage incomplete; a missing index is not an empty library. Cross-reference patterns, libraries, and techniques against existing skills:
- (A) Skill exists and covers it — no action
- (B) Skill exists but is incomplete — specify what's missing or outdated
- (C) No skill exists — evaluate reuse potential (2+ uses, non-obvious decisions, multi-file scope). If warranted, propose: skill name, domain family, key sections, complexity estimate
Verify no existing skill covers the domain via skill-search first — never propose a duplicate.
Phase 5 — Difficulty Analysis
Reflect on execution difficulty. For each: what was harder than expected, what assumptions proved wrong, what took multiple attempts, what external blockers were hit. For each: root cause, resolution, prevention.
Phase 6 — Tech Debt Inventory
Inventory tech debt introduced or discovered: shortcuts taken, TODO/FIXME/HACK comments added, deferred limitations, test coverage gaps, sidecar coverage gaps. For each: severity (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH), estimated effort, recommended timeline.
Phase 7 — Retrospective Report
Compile the full report:
- Blast Radius Summary
- Patterns Extracted — with recommended actions
- Documentation Audit — gaps, stale sidecars, README accuracy (MUST-DO vs SHOULD-DO)
- Knowledge & Skill Updates — KIs and skills to update/create
- Difficulty Log
- Tech Debt Inventory
- Gate Status — for committed work: the project gate-suite outcome (
pass/fail/skipped — why) and any acceptance criterion left unverified. Name skipped gates and unverified criteria explicitly; a clean-looking retro that omits a coverage hole misrepresents what actually shipped.
Present with actionable next steps.
Rules
- MUST check skill-index first when finding reusable patterns — avoid proposing duplicates
- MUST include skill name, domain family, and estimated content scope when proposing new skills
- MUST propose concrete follow-up when identifying tech debt — not vague observations
- MUST apply significance criteria (>100 LOC, public API, component/hook/route handler/schema) when assessing sidecars
- MUST cite both the doc claim and the contradicting code when finding MISLEADING docs
- MUST NOT fix issues in-line — retro is observation only; fixes are separate tasks
- SHOULD propose creating high-reuse skills immediately after retro
- SHOULD streamline the report to essentials only when blast radius is small (<5 files)
Next Steps
/insight-skill-gap— create/update skills flagged in retro
Human output. This skill's handler-facing output obeys the human-output contract (
human-output/SKILL.md).
Next skills. On completion, run the Next Skills protocol (
next-skills/SKILL.md): surface thenext-skillsrecommendations from front-matter for the caller to pick. Offer only — never auto-invoke.
Self-improvement. On completion, run the Self-Improvement Protocol (
self-improve/SKILL.md): apply its signal taxonomy and threshold to this run; surface any surviving proposal for handler approval. Conservative — silent otherwise. Never auto-apply.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

