本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

speckit-opsmill-retrospect

Run a session retrospective that surfaces context-management gaps and routes them to approved follow-up actions.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md8.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

User Input

$ARGUMENTS

You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty). Treat it as optional scope guidance, such as a focus area, a pasted transcript summary, or a preferred disposition.

Outline

Run a retrospective on the current agent session while the work is still fresh in context. The goal is to identify concrete improvements to the repository's context-management surface area: AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .claude/settings.json, .agents/skills/, .agents/commands/, .specify/templates/, dev/knowledge/, dev/guides/, dev/guidelines/, dev/adr/, and product or architecture decisions that caused avoidable friction.

This command closes the loop from "the agent struggled with X" to "X is captured as an approved repo improvement, dedicated PR, GitHub issue, or local-only note."

Operating Constraints

  • Stay read-only until the user approves the report and any disposition buckets. Do not edit files, commit, push, or create GitHub issues before approval.
  • Present the full retrospective before taking action. Ask for explicit approval per disposition bucket: fix-now, open-pr, github-issue, and local-only.
  • For fix-now, present a diff preview or precise patch plan before writing files. Apply only the approved changes.
  • For github-issue, defer to the existing creating-issues skill when available; if it is unavailable, use gh issue create only after the user approves the exact issue content.
  • Respect AGENTS.md guardrails. Ask First topics, including database migrations, GraphQL schema changes, new dependencies, CI/CD workflow changes, and authentication or authorization changes, are never auto-applied. Route them to open-pr or github-issue.
  • Never edit generated files. If a finding points at generated output, identify the source template or generator instead.
  • Do not treat personal preferences as repo policy. Use local-only for non-project-specific workflow preferences.

Phase 1: Resolve Session Context

  1. Identify the repository root and current branch:
    • Run git rev-parse --show-toplevel.
    • Run git branch --show-current.
    • Run git status --short to understand whether there are existing edits.
  2. Determine whether the session is inside an active spec-kit feature:
    • Try .specify/scripts/bash/check-prerequisites.sh --json --paths-only.
    • If it succeeds, record FEATURE_DIR and use FEATURE_DIR/retrospective.md as the report path.
    • If it fails or the project is not on a spec-kit feature branch, continue as an ad-hoc session and use .claude/retrospectives/YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS-<short-branch-or-session-slug>.md as the report path.
  3. Load only the context needed to classify findings:
    • Root AGENTS.md and any area-specific AGENTS.md touched this session.
    • CLAUDE.md and .claude/settings.json if present.
    • Relevant skill prompts in .agents/skills/ and commands in .agents/commands/.
    • Relevant spec-kit templates in .specify/templates/.
    • Relevant dev/knowledge/, dev/guides/, dev/guidelines/, or dev/adr/ pages.
    • Current diff and recent commands from the conversation context.

Phase 2: Identify Findings

Review the current conversation and repository context for friction that was avoidable through better shared context. Organize findings into exactly these categories:

  1. Instructions / Configuration Gaps
    • Missing, unclear, duplicated, or contradictory guidance in AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, .claude/settings.json, skill prompts, commands, or spec-kit templates.
    • Required repo workflows that the agent had to infer or rediscover.
  2. Documentation Gaps
    • Missing or stale content in dev/knowledge/, dev/guides/, dev/guidelines/, or dev/adr/.
    • Docs that contradicted current code or left out required verification steps.
  3. Architectural Friction
    • Product, architecture, or code choices that forced repeated workarounds.
    • Candidates for ADRs, refactors, or product follow-up.
  4. Mistakes & Corrections
    • Wrong turns taken during the session.
    • The guardrail, instruction, template change, or test that would have prevented the mistake.

Prefer concrete findings over broad observations. Each finding must cite the session event or repository location that motivated it.

Phase 3: Assign Dispositions

For each finding, propose one disposition:

DispositionUse WhenAction After Approval
fix-nowSmall, low-risk repo context updates that belong on the current branch and do not touch Ask First topics.Show diff preview, then edit files only after approval.
open-prContext or harness changes that should be reviewed separately from the current feature branch, or anything touching Ask First topics.Draft a branch/PR plan. Do not branch, commit, push, or open a PR unless explicitly approved.
github-issueLarger work, ambiguous ownership, product/architecture debt, ADR candidates needing human authorship, or work outside current scope.Use the creating-issues skill to draft each issue; create only after approval.
local-onlyPersonal workflow preferences or notes that should not become repo policy.Record only in approved local .specify/memory/report locations supported by the runtime.

Disposition rules:

  • If a finding involves database schema or migration changes, GraphQL schema changes, new dependencies, CI/CD workflows, authentication, authorization, or generated files, do not assign fix-now.
  • If a finding needs product or architecture ownership, prefer github-issue unless the user explicitly asks for a dedicated PR.
  • If a finding is already fully covered by existing docs or instructions, do not include it as a finding; mention it only in a brief "No action" note if helpful.

Phase 4: Produce Review Report

Before writing any files, present the retrospective in chat using this structure:

## Session Retrospective

**Scope**: <current feature, branch, or ad-hoc session>
**Proposed report path**: <path>

### Findings

| ID | Category | Evidence | Improvement | Disposition |
|----|----------|----------|-------------|-------------|
| R1 | Instructions / Configuration Gaps | <specific session event or file path> | <concrete change> | fix-now |

### Disposition Buckets

#### fix-now

- R1: <target file and change summary>

#### open-pr

- R2: <branch or PR scope>

#### github-issue

- R3: <issue title>

#### local-only

- R4: <memory/report note>

### Approval Request

Reply with one or more approved buckets, for example:

- `approve report only`
- `approve fix-now`
- `approve github-issue R3`
- `approve all except open-pr`

The report must include concrete findings in all four categories. If a category genuinely has no findings, include the category with None found and a one-sentence reason.

Phase 5: Save Report

Save the retrospective report only after the user approves report only, a disposition bucket, or all.

Report path:

  • Active spec-kit feature: specs/<current-feature>/retrospective.md.
  • Ad-hoc session: .claude/retrospectives/YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS-<short-branch-or-session-slug>.md.

If the report path already exists, append a numeric suffix rather than overwriting it.

Phase 6: Execute Approved Dispositions

Process only the buckets the user approved.

fix-now

  1. Show a diff preview or exact patch plan for the approved findings.
  2. Wait for confirmation if the preview changes the original scope.
  3. Apply edits with normal repository editing rules.
  4. Run relevant validation. For prompt, command, and Markdown-only changes, at minimum verify paths exist and the command can be discovered from the extension manifest and runtime command file. Run broader lint or tests when touched files are covered by existing automation.

open-pr

  1. Draft the proposed branch name, PR title, PR body summary, and changed file list.
  2. Ask for explicit approval before creating a branch, committing, pushing, or opening a PR.
  3. If approved, use the repository's normal PR workflow.

github-issue

  1. For each approved finding, invoke the creating-issues skill with the finding as source material.
  2. Present the exact issue title/body/labels for approval.
  3. Create issues only after approval.

local-only

  1. Record the note only in runtime-supported local memory or in the approved retrospective report.
  2. Do not add local-only preferences to repo files unless the user explicitly reclassifies them as repo policy.

Completion

After approved actions are complete, provide a brief summary:

  • Report path
  • Actions taken
  • Validation run
  • Any remaining unapproved buckets

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Analyzes recent CI failures on pull requests to identify flaky tests, using retry outcomes (failed attempt → green re-run) and cross-PR recurrence as evidence, and maintains a local longitudinal ledger so flakiness can be tracked over time. TRIGGER when: the user wants to find flaky tests, correlate recent CI failures, check which tests fail across PRs or recover on retry, or refresh the flakiness trend report. DO NOT TRIGGER when: babysitting a single PR's CI until green → monitoring-pull-requests; diagnosing or fixing one specific failing test → the bug-analysis skills.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

opsmill/infrahub5362026年10月13日 更新

Audits internal (dev/) and external (docs/) documentation completeness for a feature, subject, or set of existing docs, maps changes indicated by the user, across Infrahub's documentation layers, reports gaps, and optionally applies the fixes. TRIGGER when: the user wants to audit or check documentation coverage, find doc gaps after a feature branch, or verify docs are still current for a subject or specific files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: authoring new documentation from scratch → use the add-docs flow; only linting/formatting Markdown → run `uv run invoke docs.lint`.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

opsmill/infrahub5362026年10月13日 更新

commit

無料

Stages and commits the current changes onto a safe working branch, enforcing branch discipline and optionally pushing upstream. TRIGGER when: the user wants to commit, save, or check in the current changes. DO NOT TRIGGER when: opening a pull request → pr.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

opsmill/infrahub5362026年10月13日 更新

Use when you've fixed a bug, added a feature, or made any user-facing change in a project that uses Towncrier and need to record it for the changelog — before committing or opening a PR, or whenever asked to add a changelog entry, towncrier fragment, or news fragment.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

opsmill/infrahub5362026年10月13日 更新

Turns a single feature idea, improvement, or bug into ONE well-structured GitHub issue. TRIGGER when: the user wants to file/open/create an issue, turn a feature idea or improvement into a ticket, or capture something missing or broken as a ticket. DO NOT TRIGGER when: breaking work into multiple issues or planning a body of work → a planning skill; writing a full Product Requirements Document → creating-prd; the idea is still fuzzy and unhardened → grilling-ideas first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

opsmill/infrahub5362026年10月13日 更新

Synthesises the current conversation context into a Product Requirements Document and publishes it to GitHub (as a comment on a referenced issue, or a new issue). Synthesises from context; does not interview. TRIGGER when: the conversation has produced enough understanding of a feature and the user wants it captured as a PRD. DO NOT TRIGGER when: a single small issue is enough → creating-issues; the idea has not been stress-tested yet → grilling-ideas first; bug reports.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

opsmill/infrahub5362026年10月13日 更新

opsmill のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する