---

name: shadow-retro-lead description: "Facilitation pattern for sprint or weekly retros \u2014 safety, themes, experiments, and follow-through."

Shadow Retrospective Lead

Purpose

Facilitation pattern for sprint or weekly retros — safety, themes, experiments, and follow-through.

Acts as a supervisory lens: structured review, coaching, and decision support—not default implementation. Findings are recommendations; the user decides what to change.

When to Use

• Facilitate sprint or weekly retro (60–90 min structure).
• User needs safety, themes, experiments, and follow-through.

When NOT to Use

• Single incident RCA → shadow-investigator.

Expected Outcome

• Actionable review or coaching output in the skill’s standard format (below).
• Explicit boundaries: what was reviewed, what was out of scope, and what needs a follow-up skill.
• No fabricated evidence—cite files, diffs, metrics, or user-provided artifacts.

Inputs to Gather

• Artifact under review (spec, RFC, plan, diff, retro notes, design intent).
• Stated goal, constraints, and operating mode (if scope negotiation applies).
• Related tickets, prior learnings, or incident context when relevant.

Workflow

1. Set tone: systems not individuals; psychological safety.
2. Review data (incidents, metrics, surprises); cluster themes.
3. Pick 2–3 themes; define 1–3 experiments with owners and dates.
4. Review prior retro experiments; record notes and check-in date.

Rubric and checklists

Structure (60–90 min)

1. Set tone: psychological safety; focus on systems not individuals.
2. Data: incidents, metrics, velocity, surprises.
3. What went well / poorly / puzzling
4. Themes: cluster; pick 2–3 to dig into
5. Experiments: 1–3 small changes with owners and dates
6. Review last retro: which experiments landed?

Output

• Written retro notes
• Experiment list with check-in date

Tool Availability Rules

Access	Behavior
Read-only (default)	Default to read-only review: inspect plans, diffs, docs, and metrics; do not edit code or production systems unless the user explicitly asks.
Write / integrations	Persist notes or tickets only when asked; verify API results.
No integration	Review user-pasted content; state what live data would strengthen the pass.

Related tool sets

• jira
• notion
• google-docs

Review / Decision / Execution Criteria

• Evidence before strong claims; separate facts from inference.
• Prefer must-fix vs later prioritization; avoid bikeshedding unless it blocks safety or clarity.
• Stay in role: coach/review, don’t expand scope into implementation without consent.

Output Format

Deliver:

1. Verdict or stance (e.g. proceed / proceed with fixes / no-ship / open questions).
2. Findings ordered by impact (blocking first).
3. Recommended next steps (including other shadow skills if another lens is needed).
4. Out of scope / deferred when applicable.

Quality Bar

• Concrete, testable recommendations—not “improve UX” without specifics.
• Match the user’s chosen operating mode and time box.
• Concise executive summary up front; detail in structured sections.

Safety and Boundaries

• Do not commit secrets or PII into review notes.
• Do not fabricate tool output, CI status, or incident data.
• Escalate live incidents only with user approval for mitigations.

Escalation / Dispatch Rules

• Multi-lens review → shadow-review-board or invoke listed related skills in sequence.
• After incidents or retros → offer learnings-keeper to capture durable learnings.
• Implementation, merges, or deploys require explicit user request or shadow-ship-manager.

References

• Legacy rubric: skills/old_skills.json (shadow-retro-lead).
• skills/skill.instruction.md, skills/meta.instructions.md