/feature-retro "<feature-slug>"

Post-feature retrospective. Reviews what actually happened against what was planned: scope divergence, invalidated assumptions, missed domain gaps, and lessons learned. Writes findings back to .decisions/, .kb/, .capabilities/, and .work/ so future features benefit.

When to run. Invoked automatically by /feature-pr Step 4.5 before the PR is created — its outputs (feature footprints, adversarial findings, capability-index updates, work-definition status) need to land in the same commit that opens the PR. Running retro after a PR is opened (or merged) strands those artifacts on main and forces a follow-up "fix retro artifacts" PR. Don't do that.

Direct invocation is supported for two cases: (a) re-running on an archived feature for late-discovered learnings, and (b) explicit recovery when retro was skipped during the PR flow. In case (b), expect to open a follow-up PR for the artifacts.

Pre-flight guard

Check that .feature/<slug>/ exists (or .feature/_archive/<slug>/). If neither exists: "No feature found for '<slug>'. Check the slug or run /feature-resume --list to see active features."

If found in _archive/: read from there. The feature is complete but the working files are still available locally.

Check that cycle-log.md has at least one implemented or refactor-complete entry. If not: "Feature '<slug>' has not completed implementation. Run the retrospective after the TDD cycle finishes."

Idempotency — skip if already complete

Check cycle-log.md for an existing retro-complete entry. If present, the retrospective has already run. Display:

── Retrospective already complete ─────────────
Found existing retro-complete entry in cycle-log.md (dated <date>).
Re-running would duplicate footprint / adversarial-finding KB entries.

Use AskUserQuestion with options:

• "Skip — retro already done"
• "Re-run anyway (late-discovered learnings)"

If "Skip": stop with the message "Retro already complete — nothing to do." If "Re-run anyway": proceed; warn that any /research sub-agents will need to recognize and update existing entries rather than create duplicates.

Display opening header:

───────────────────────────────────────────────
🔍 FEATURE RETRO · <slug>
───────────────────────────────────────────────

Step 1 — Load context

Read in order:

1. status.md — stage completion, cycle count, token usage
2. brief.md — original scope, acceptance criteria, assumptions
3. work-plan.md — planned constructs, contracts, work units
4. domains.md — domain analysis, ADR references, noted gaps
5. cycle-log.md — full history (what actually happened)
6. test-plan.md — what was tested

Do NOT read implementation or test source files.

Step 2 — Analyse divergence

Compare what was planned against what happened. Check each dimension:

2a — Scope divergence

Compare brief.md acceptance criteria against cycle-log.md outcomes:

• Were all acceptance criteria met?
• Were any criteria added mid-implementation (not in the original brief)?
• Were any criteria dropped or descoped?
• Did any escalations (code-escalation, test-to-planner-escalation) indicate scope was wrong?

2b — Assumption validation

Read the ## Open Assumptions section from brief.md. For each assumption:

• Was it validated during implementation?
• Was it invalidated? (the implementation had to work around it)
• Is it still untested?

2c — Domain gap review

Read domains.md ## Unresolved Gaps section and any gap-noted domains:

• Did any noted gaps cause problems during implementation?
• Were any domains missed entirely that should have been identified?
• Did any ADRs referenced in domains.md turn out to be wrong or insufficient?

2d — Estimation accuracy

Read the Stage Completion table from status.md:

• Compare Est. Tokens vs Actual Tokens for each stage
• Identify stages that were significantly over or under (>30% delta)
• Note the total estimate vs actual

2e — TDD cycle efficiency

From cycle-log.md:

• How many cycles did it take?
• How many escalations occurred?
• How many missing tests were found during refactor?
• Were any contracts revised?

2f — Displacement finalization

Skip this step if work-plan.md does not contain a ## Removal Work section.

For each accepted displacement in the Removal Work table where removal tests pass (check cycle-log.md for test results):

1. Update the displaced spec:
   • Read the displaced spec file (resolve via registry)
   • Set state → INVALIDATED
   • Set status → DEPRECATED
   • Set displaced_by → ["<new_spec_id>"]
   • Set displacement_reason → the reason from the displacement resolution (captured in the resolved bundle's ## Displacement Resolution section)
   • Write the updated spec file
2. Update the manifest:

   tmp=$(mktemp)
   jq --arg id "<displaced_spec_id>" '.features[$id].state = "INVALIDATED"' \
     .spec/registry/manifest.json > "$tmp" && mv "$tmp" .spec/registry/manifest.json

3. Update the new spec's invalidates array to include all accepted displacement requirement refs (if not already present from spec-resolve).
4. Flag related artifacts for review:
   • If the displaced spec has decision_refs, present each to the user:

     ADR <slug> was referenced by now-invalidated spec <id>.

     Use AskUserQuestion: "Revisit via /decisions" / "Keep as-is"
   • If the displaced spec has kb_refs, note them:

     KB entry <path> was referenced by invalidated spec <id>.
     Flag for review during next /curate run.

5. Log to cycle-log.md:

   ## <YYYY-MM-DD> — displacement-finalized
   **Agent:** 🔍 Retro
   **Displaced specs:** <list of spec IDs marked INVALIDATED>
   **ADRs flagged:** <list or "none">
   **KB entries flagged:** <list or "none">
   **Reason:** <displacement reason>
   ---

Step 3 — Display the retrospective

── Feature Retrospective · <slug> ─────────────

SCOPE
  Acceptance criteria: <n met> / <n total>
  <If any dropped:>  Dropped: <list>
  <If any added:>    Added mid-flight: <list>
  Verdict: <on-track | minor drift | significant drift>

ASSUMPTIONS
  <For each assumption from brief.md:>
  ✓ <assumption> — validated
  ✗ <assumption> — invalidated: <what happened>
  ? <assumption> — untested

DOMAINS
  <If gaps caused issues:>
  ⚠ <domain> — gap caused: <issue description>
  <If domains were missed:>
  ⚠ Missing domain: <domain that should have been identified>
  <If ADRs were insufficient:>
  ⚠ <adr-slug> — insufficient: <what was missing>
  <If all clean:>
  ✓ All domains adequately covered

TOKEN ACCURACY
  | Stage          | Est.   | Actual  | Δ      |
  |----------------|--------|---------|--------|
  <from status.md Stage Completion table>
  | Total          | ~<N>K  | <N>K in | <+/-%> |
  <If any stage >30% off:>
  Note: <stage> was <N>% <over|under> estimate.

TDD EFFICIENCY
  Cycles: <n>
  Escalations: <n> (<types>)
  Missing tests found: <n>
  Contract revisions: <n>
  Verdict: <clean | minor friction | significant rework>

<If displacement finalization occurred:>
DISPLACEMENT
  Specs invalidated: <n>
  ADRs flagged for review: <n>
  KB entries flagged: <n>

<If `.feature/<slug>/spec-coverage.md` exists and is non-vacuous:>
SPEC COVERAGE
  <Output of `bash .claude/scripts/spec-coverage.sh report .feature/<slug>/spec-coverage.md`,
  e.g. "Spec coverage: 12 loaded · 11 annotated · 1 waived · 0 pending".>
  <If any rows are still pending: list them — these are the gaps that
  /feature-pr will block on, and the retro is the last natural surface
  to flag them before PR drafting.>
  <If any rows are waived: list each with its reason.>

───────────────────────────────────────────────

Step 4 — Extract actionable findings

For each finding, classify and offer an action:

Findings that should update .decisions/

If an ADR was invalidated or insufficient:

── ADR Update ─────────────────────────────────
  <adr-slug> — <what was wrong or missing>

  Use AskUserQuestion with options:
    - "Open review"
    - "Skip"

If "Open review": invoke /decisions revisit "<adr-slug>" as a sub-agent.

If a design decision was made during implementation without an ADR (detected from contract revisions or escalations that changed the approach):

── Undocumented Decision ──────────────────────
  <description of what was decided>
  Source: <escalation / contract revision / scope change>

  Use AskUserQuestion with options:
    - "Create ADR"
    - "Skip"

If "Create ADR": invoke /architect "<decision problem>" as a sub-agent.

Findings that should update .kb/

If implementation revealed information that would be useful for future features (e.g., a library behaved unexpectedly, a pattern worked well, a constraint was discovered):

── KB Finding ─────────────────────────────────
  <what was learned>
  Relevant topic: <topic> / <category>

  Use AskUserQuestion with options:
    - "Research and document"
    - "Skip"

If "Research and document": invoke /research "<subject>" context: "feature-retro for <slug>, domain: <topic>/<category>" as a sub-agent.

Feature footprint

Always generate a feature footprint KB entry. This is not optional — every completed feature should leave a trace in the knowledge base.

── Feature Footprint ─────────────────────────
  Generating KB entry for <slug>...
  Domains: <domains from domains.md>
  Key constructs: <new/modified types>

Invoke /research "<slug> feature footprint" context: "feature-retro footprint for <slug>. Suggested: architecture/feature-footprints" as a sub-agent, providing it with:

• The domains from domains.md
• The key constructs from work-plan.md (new + modified)
• Any adversarial findings (from known_issues.md if it exists)
• Cross-references to ADRs created during this feature

The research agent writes the entry following the template at .kb/_refs/feature-footprint-template.md.

Adversarial finding graduation

If .feature/<slug>/known_issues.md exists and contains RESOLVED or TENDENCY entries (from aTDD rounds or audit passes):

── Adversarial Findings ──────────────────────
  <n> RESOLVED patterns, <n> TENDENCY patterns found
  These should be documented in .kb/ for future features.

  Use AskUserQuestion with options:
    - "Graduate to KB"
    - "Skip"

If "Graduate to KB": for each significant pattern (not one-off fixes), invoke /research "<pattern-name>" context: "feature-retro adversarial finding from <slug>. Suggested: <domain>/adversarial-findings" as a sub-agent. The research agent writes entries following the template at .kb/_refs/adversarial-finding-template.md.

Group related findings — don't create a separate KB entry for every individual bug. A single entry per bug class (e.g., "assertion-based safety checks", "silent null returns on error paths") is the right granularity.

Estimation calibration

If token estimates were consistently off in one direction:

── Estimation Note ────────────────────────────
  <stage> estimates were consistently <high|low> by ~<N>%.
  Consider adjusting the per-construct estimate in /feature-plan
  Step 2b (currently 3.5K per construct).

This is informational only — no file is written. The user decides whether to adjust.

Step 4b — Capability index update

Guard: Only run this step if .capabilities/CLAUDE.md exists. If no capability index, skip silently.

Check whether this feature contributes to an existing capability or introduces a new one.

Read .capabilities/CLAUDE.md to get the domain map. Read the domain indexes to find existing capabilities. Read the feature brief to understand what was built.

Use AskUserQuestion:

• "Update existing capability" — this feature adds to or improves an existing capability (select which one from any domain)
• "Create new capability" — this feature introduces a genuinely new project capability
• "Skip" — don't update the capability index

If "Update existing": read the selected capability entry. Ask for the feature's role:

Use AskUserQuestion:

• "Core" — primary implementation of this capability
• "Extends" — adds a new dimension to the capability
• "Quality" — performance fix, bug fix, or internal improvement
• "Enables" — prerequisite, but the capability is its own concern

Add this feature to the features: array with the role and a one-line description. Update the Recently Updated table in the root CLAUDE.md and the domain CLAUDE.md.

If "Create new": run /capabilities add "<name>" with the feature brief as context. The add flow will handle domain placement and type selection.

Step 5 — Write retro summary

Append retro-complete to cycle-log.md:

## <YYYY-MM-DD> — retro-complete
**Agent:** 🔍 Retro
**Scope:** <on-track | minor drift | significant drift>
**Assumptions:** <n validated> / <n total> (<n invalidated>)
**Domain gaps:** <n issues found>
**Token accuracy:** <total est> vs <total actual> (<delta%>)
**TDD efficiency:** <n cycles>, <n escalations>, <n missing tests>
**Actions taken:**
- <ADR reviewed: <slug>> | <ADR created: <slug>> | <KB updated: <topic>>
- Feature footprint: .kb/architecture/feature-footprints/<slug>.md
- <If displacement finalized:> Displacement: <n> specs INVALIDATED, <n> ADRs flagged
- <If adversarial findings graduated:> Adversarial findings: <n> patterns → .kb/
- ...
---

Display:

───────────────────────────────────────────────
🔍 FEATURE RETRO complete · <slug>
───────────────────────────────────────────────
  Scope: <verdict>
  Actions: <n ADR reviews> · <n new ADRs> · <n KB updates>

  Retrospective logged in cycle-log.md.
  <If feature not yet archived:>
  When the PR merges: /feature-complete "<slug>"
───────────────────────────────────────────────

Step 6 — Generate narrative article (required)

Generate the narrative article — the primary record of pipeline performance. It contains per-phase token usage, durations, session counts, Gantt charts, and the full feature story. Without it, cost analysis requires manual JSONL mining.

Run:

bash .claude/scripts/narrative-wrapper.sh "<slug>" ".feature/<slug>"

If the script succeeds (exit 0 and .feature/<slug>/narrative.md exists):

  📖 Narrative article generated: .feature/<slug>/narrative.md

If the script fails (non-zero exit or no file written): Report the failure and the retry command. Do NOT silently skip it.

  ⚠️ Narrative generation failed. To retry manually:
  bash .claude/scripts/narrative-wrapper.sh "<slug>" ".feature/<slug>"

The retro is still complete — narrative failure does not block the pipeline. But the failure must be visible so the data can be recovered.

The narrative article includes:

• shields.io badges (duration, tokens, model, vallorcine version)
• Mermaid gantt chart of pipeline phases
• Phase-by-phase breakdown with conversations, escalations, TDD cycles
• Progressive disclosure for background narration

Step 7 — Work group lifecycle update

Skip this step if status.md does not have a work_group field and the feature slug does not contain -- (double-dash convention).

If this feature is work-group-sourced:

1. Determine the work group and WD:
   • From work_group field in status.md, or
   • From slug: <group>--<wd> → group slug and WD identifier
2. Find the WD file: Read .work/<group>/WD-*.md files and find the one whose id matches the work_definition field in status.md (or derive from the slug's WD portion).
3. Update WD status to COMPLETE (idempotent):
   • Read the WD file's front matter. If status is already COMPLETE, skip — feature-refactor Step 6b already handled this.
   • If not COMPLETE: edit the WD file's front matter: set status: COMPLETE
4. Update the manifest: The manifest table is automatically synced by work-resolve.sh in step 5 below — do not update it manually.

5. Check readiness cascade:

   bash .claude/scripts/work-resolve.sh "<group>"

   Parse the output. If any WDs transitioned to READY as a result of this completion (their blockers were artifacts this WD produced), report:

   ── Work group update ──────────────────────────
   WD-<nn> complete. Work group '<group>': <complete>/<total>.
   
   Newly unblocked:
     WD-<nn> — <title> (now READY)
     WD-<nn> — <title> (now READY)
   
   Next: /work-start "<group>" next

   If no new WDs were unblocked:

   ── Work group update ──────────────────────────
   WD-<nn> complete. Work group '<group>': <complete>/<total>.

   If all WDs are now COMPLETE:

   ── Work group complete ────────────────────────
   All work definitions in '<group>' are complete!

Write authority

The retro command writes to:

• .feature/<slug>/cycle-log.md (retro-complete entry only)
• .feature/<slug>/narrative.md (via narrative-wrapper.sh, optional)

It does NOT directly write to .decisions/ or .kb/ — it invokes /architect, /decisions revisit, and /research as sub-agents, and those commands handle their own writes. The feature footprint and adversarial finding graduation steps also use /research sub-agents.