--- name: retro description: Looks back over a coding session and files the changes to the agent's environment (checks, pointers, instruction files, tooling, access) that would have made it go better. Use when the user says "retro", "run a retrospective", "what slowed you down", or "what should we change so this goes smoother next time"; when a run has just finished through compost:finish; and, without being asked, once a task is done that was harder than it should have been, such as the same mistake made twice, a long hunt for a file or fact, a fact you had to guess because you could not reach it, an error no check caught, or a tool call that cost far more than its answer. --- # Retro A session that went badly usually went badly for a reason outside the code: a file the agent could not find, a mistake no check caught, a rule buried in an instruction file nobody weighs, a log it could not see. Retro reads one session after it ends and asks what in the environment should change so the next session does not pay the same cost. The fixes are to the environment, never to the session's own work: that went through review already. This differs from `compost:skill-drift`, which watches one skill's text across many sessions, and from `compost:prune`, which checks docs against the code. A candidate that is really one of theirs goes to them. The user can ask for a retro at any time. Start one yourself when a task you just finished cost more than it should have, for one of the reasons in the description. Finish the task first: a retro mid-task derails the work it is about, and only a finished session shows the whole cost. Scope it to the stretch that struggled, not the whole session. A retro that finds nothing worth fixing files nothing and says so in one line. ## Steps 1. **Read the tracker.** Find it in `docs/agents/issue-tracker.md`. If that file is missing, run `compost:setup` now, then continue. 2. **Read the session's primary sources.** Default to the current session; when the user names another, find its transcript under `~/.claude/projects//.jsonl`. Read what happened, not a summary of it: the transcript, the branch diff, the rulings and review findings on its issues. A long transcript goes to a subagent that returns each costly moment with its line in the transcript: a long search, a repeated mistake, an expensive call, a correction from the user, a fact the agent had to guess. 3. **Read the environment as it stands.** The repo's `AGENTS.md` and `CLAUDE.md` and the user's global one, `docs/agents/`, the repo's own check command, its CI workflow, its pre-commit hooks, and the hooks Claude Code loads. A check that exists but is unwired or silently broken is the finding; building a second one is not the fix. 4. **Look for candidates.** Each candidate cites the moment in the session that shows it. - **Navigation:** finding the right file or fact took a long time, or a dependency between files was hidden. The fix is usually a pointer where the agent first looked. - **Automated checks:** the agent made a mistake a lint rule, type check, test, or hook could have caught. A repo whose lint, type check, and tests run in neither a pre-commit hook nor CI is a finding on its own. - **Coding standards:** the reviewer missed a mistake, or a standard is unclear or obsolete. Classify it first: a mechanical one gets a check ([make mistakes impossible](../../canon/make-mistakes-impossible.md)); only a judgement call becomes a written standard. - **Instruction weight:** `AGENTS.md` or `CLAUDE.md` carries steering that belongs in a check or in what review reads. - **Tool economy:** a tool call, CLI, or MCP server cost far more tokens or time than the answer was worth. - **No-ops:** an instruction that changed nothing the agent did. It costs context and earns nothing. - **Information access:** the agent needed a fact it could not reach: dev-server logs, read-only access to a service, a doc behind a login. 5. **Place each fix where it costs least.** The implementing agent carries the most context pressure: it explores, writes, and debugs. The reviewer reads a diff and carries the least. So a standard is enforced at review, not taught to the implementer, and `AGENTS.md` holds pointers rather than rules, since every agent in the repo pays for every line of it. Go as high as the fix allows: a check, then a standard the reviewer reads, then a pointer in `AGENTS.md`. A fact for the docs follows [core docs](../../canon/core-docs.md). 6. **File the candidates, most severe first.** One issue per candidate in the repo's tracker, with the session evidence, the category, and the fix with its placement. A candidate outside the repo (the user's global `CLAUDE.md`, a personal skill, an MCP server's config) is not filed: write the proposed change as exact text in the report. End with one line per candidate: severity, category, and the issue link or proposal. ## Next moves - `compost:build` when a filed candidate is small and worth doing now. - `compost:spec` when several candidates add up to one change to how the repo works. - `compost:skill-drift` when a candidate is a compost skill saying the wrong thing. - `compost:prune` when a candidate is a doc that drifted from the code.