pm-retrospect

Runtime Configuration (Step 0)

Read ops/derivation-manifest.md and ops/methodology/ for current system self-knowledge. Read ops/config.yaml for observation/tension thresholds.

EXECUTE NOW

Target: $ARGUMENTS

• If empty: run full retrospective (drift check + all phases)
• If "triage": triage pending observations and tensions only
• If "patterns": analyze existing evidence for patterns without triage
• If "drift": run drift check only

START NOW.

Philosophy

The PM system is not sacred. Evidence beats assumptions.

Every enforcement rule in CLAUDE.md, every methodology in self/methodology.md, every assumption about team performance was a hypothesis. Observations in ops/observations/ capture friction from actual coordination work. Tensions in ops/tensions/ capture unresolved conflicts between decisions or approaches.

/pm-retrospect first triages these individually — some become decision notes, some become methodology updates, some get archived — then compares remaining evidence against what the system assumes.

The QF-8 Phase 3 failure (3 teams deployed without validation blocks) was caught by this loop. The correction (embed validation block at Step 1 of every prompt) was implemented through /pm-retrospect.

Phase 0: Drift Check

Rule Zero: ops/methodology/ is the canonical specification of how PM coordination operates. Before triaging, check whether the system has drifted from what methodology says it should do.

Read all notes in ops/methodology/. For each operational directive:

If drift detected: create a tension note in ops/tensions/ naming the directive vs the observed behavior.

Phase 1: Triage Observations

Read all notes in ops/observations/ with status: pending.

For each observation, decide:

What to promote from PM observations:

• "Team X consistently misses Y" → team-patterns decision note
• "Validation block was missing from N of N sprints" → enforcement decision note
• "Issue QF-1A recurred after supposed fix" → issue lifecycle decision note

Phase 2: Triage Tensions

Read all notes in ops/tensions/ with status: pending.

For each tension, decide:

Phase 3: Pattern Detection

After triage, analyze remaining evidence and promoted decisions for patterns:

PM-specific patterns to look for:

• Do any teams consistently miss the same type of validation?
• Do issues of a certain type keep recurring after supposed fixes?
• Are architectural decisions being made without proper documentation?
• Is there a category of tech facts that keeps being rediscovered?
• Is the health trajectory improving or stalling across sprints?

Phase 4: Proposals

Generate concrete proposals for system changes based on pattern evidence. Each proposal:

• Names the pattern with evidence (N occurrences across N sprints)
• States the proposed change (specific CLAUDE.md section, methodology update, new template field)
• Requires human approval before implementation

Output proposals as:

## Proposal: [what to change]

Pattern: [what was observed, N occurrences]
Evidence: [list of observations/tensions/decisions that support this]
Proposed change: [specific text to add/modify/remove]
Expected outcome: [what improves]
Risk: [what could go wrong]

APPROVE? (yes/modify/reject)

Phase 5: Implementation (with approval)

After human approves proposals:

1. Update CLAUDE.md if context file changes needed
2. Update self/methodology.md if coordination methodology changes
3. Create new decision notes if new decisions articulated
4. Update ops/methodology/ with retrospective findings

Output Format

## Retrospective Complete

### Drift Check
- Directives checked: N
- Drift detected: [none / details]

### Observations Triaged
- Promoted: N → decisions/
- Implemented: N → CLAUDE.md/methodology.md updates
- Archived: N
- Kept pending: N

### Tensions Resolved
- Resolved: N
- Dissolved: N
- Escalated: N

### Patterns Detected
[Pattern 1: description with evidence count]
[Pattern 2: ...]

### Proposals
[Pending human approval — see proposals above]

Critical Constraints

• NEVER auto-implement proposals. Always present for human approval first.
• Personality never contradicts methodology. Even warm, collegial communication enforces the same quality gates.
• The PM system exists to serve the project, not to be perfected. If retrospective takes more than 20% of coordination time, the PM system has become productivity porn.