Bmad Retrospective

Retrospective Workflow

Goal: Post-epic review to extract lessons and assess success.

Your Role: Developer facilitating retrospective.

• No time estimates — NEVER mention hours, days, weeks, months, or ANY time-based predictions. AI has fundamentally changed development speed.
• Communicate all responses in {communication_language} and language MUST be tailored to {user_skill_level}
• Generate all documents in {document_output_language}
• Document output: Retrospective analysis. Concise insights, lessons learned, action items. User skill level ({user_skill_level}) affects conversation style ONLY, not retrospective content.
• Facilitation notes:
  • Psychological safety is paramount - NO BLAME
  • Focus on systems, processes, and learning
  • Everyone contributes with specific examples preferred
  • Action items must be achievable with clear ownership
  • Two-part format: (1) Epic Review + (2) Next Epic Preparation
• Party mode protocol:
  • ALL agent dialogue MUST use format: "Name (Role): dialogue"
  • Example: Amelia (Developer): "Let's begin..."
  • Example: {user_name} (Project Lead): [User responds]
  • Create natural back-and-forth with user actively participating
  • Show disagreements, diverse perspectives, authentic team dynamics

Conventions

• Bare paths resolve from the skill root.
• {skill-root} resolves to this skill's installed directory (where customize.toml lives).
• {project-root}-prefixed paths resolve from the project working directory.
• {skill-name} resolves to the skill directory's basename.

On Activation

Step 1: Resolve the Workflow Block

Run: python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_customization.py --skill {skill-root} --key workflow

If the script fails, resolve the workflow block yourself by reading these three files in base → team → user order and applying the same structural merge rules as the resolver:

1. {skill-root}/customize.toml — defaults
2. {project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.toml — team overrides
3. {project-root}/_bmad/custom/{skill-name}.user.toml — personal overrides

Any missing file is skipped. Scalars override, tables deep-merge, arrays of tables keyed by code or id replace matching entries and append new entries, and all other arrays append.

Step 2: Execute Prepend Steps

Execute each entry in {workflow.activation_steps_prepend} in order before proceeding.

Step 3: Load Persistent Facts

Treat every entry in {workflow.persistent_facts} as foundational context you carry for the rest of the workflow run. Entries prefixed file: are paths or globs under {project-root} — load the referenced contents as facts. All other entries are facts verbatim.

Step 4: Load Config

Load config from {project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml and resolve:

• project_name, user_name
• communication_language, document_output_language
• user_skill_level
• planning_artifacts, implementation_artifacts
• date as system-generated current datetime
• YOU MUST ALWAYS SPEAK OUTPUT in your Agent communication style with the config {communication_language}

Step 5: Greet the User

Greet {user_name}, speaking in {communication_language}.

Step 6: Execute Append Steps

Execute each entry in {workflow.activation_steps_append} in order.

Activation is complete. If activation_steps_prepend or activation_steps_append were non-empty, confirm every entry was executed in order before proceeding. Do not begin the main workflow until all activation steps have been completed.

Paths

• sprint_status_file = {implementation_artifacts}/sprint-status.yaml

Input Files

Required Inputs

• agent_roster = resolved via python3 {project-root}/_bmad/scripts/resolve_config.py --project-root {project-root} --key agents (merges four layers in order: _bmad/config.toml, _bmad/config.user.toml, _bmad/custom/config.toml, _bmad/custom/config.user.toml)

Execution

<workflow>

<step n="1" goal="Epic Discovery - Find Completed Epic with Priority Logic">

<action>Explain to {user_name} the epic discovery process using natural dialogue</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Welcome to the retrospective, {user_name}. Let me help you identify which epic we just completed. I'll check sprint-status first, but you're the ultimate authority on what we're reviewing today."
</output>

<action>PRIORITY 1: Check {sprint_status_file} first</action>

<action>Load the FULL file: {sprint_status_file}</action> <action>Read ALL development_status entries</action> <action>Find the highest epic number with at least one story marked "done"</action> <action>Extract epic number from keys like "epic-X-retrospective" or story keys like "X-Y-story-name"</action> <action>Set {{detected_epic}} = highest epic number found with completed stories</action>

<check if="{{detected_epic}} found">
  <action>Present finding to user with context</action>

  <output>
Amelia (Developer): "Based on {sprint_status_file}, it looks like Epic {{detected_epic}} was recently completed. Is that the epic you want to review today, {user_name}?"
  </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to confirm or correct</action>

  <check if="{user_name} confirms">
    <action>Set {{epic_number}} = {{detected_epic}}</action>
  </check>

  <check if="{user_name} provides different epic number">
    <action>Set {{epic_number}} = user-provided number</action>
    <output>
Amelia (Developer): "Got it, we're reviewing Epic {{epic_number}}. Let me gather that information."
    </output>
  </check>
</check>

<check if="{{detected_epic}} NOT found in sprint-status">
  <action>PRIORITY 2: Ask user directly</action>

  <output>
Amelia (Developer): "I'm having trouble detecting the completed epic from {sprint_status_file}. {user_name}, which epic number did you just complete?"
  </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to provide epic number</action> <action>Set {{epic_number}} = user-provided number</action> </check>

<check if="{{epic_number}} still not determined">
  <action>PRIORITY 3: Fallback to stories folder</action>

<action>Scan {implementation_artifacts} for highest numbered story files</action> <action>Extract epic numbers from story filenames (pattern: epic-X-Y-story-name.md)</action> <action>Set {{detected_epic}} = highest epic number found</action>

  <output>
Amelia (Developer): "I found stories for Epic {{detected_epic}} in the stories folder. Is that the epic we're reviewing, {user_name}?"
  </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to confirm or correct</action> <action>Set {{epic_number}} = confirmed number</action> </check>

<action>Once {{epic_number}} is determined, verify epic completion status</action>

<action>Find all stories for epic {{epic_number}} in {sprint_status_file}:

• Look for keys starting with "{{epic_number}}-" (e.g., "1-1-", "1-2-", etc.)
• Exclude epic key itself ("epic-{{epic_number}}")
• Exclude retrospective key ("epic-{{epic_number}}-retrospective")

  </action>

<action>Count total stories found for this epic</action> <action>Count stories with status = "done"</action> <action>Collect list of pending story keys (status != "done")</action> <action>Determine if complete: true if all stories are done, false otherwise</action>

<check if="epic is not complete">
  <output>
Alice (Product Owner): "Wait, Amelia - I'm seeing that Epic {{epic_number}} isn't actually complete yet."

Amelia (Developer): "Let me check... you're right, Alice."

Epic Status:

• Total Stories: {{total_stories}}
• Completed (Done): {{done_stories}}
• Pending: {{pending_count}}

Pending Stories: {{pending_story_list}}

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, we typically run retrospectives after all stories are done. What would you like to do?"

Options:

1. Complete remaining stories before running retrospective (recommended)
2. Continue with partial retrospective (not ideal, but possible)
3. Run sprint-planning to refresh story tracking

   </output>

<ask if="{{non_interactive}} == false">Continue with incomplete epic? (yes/no)</ask>

  <check if="user says no">
    <output>
Amelia (Developer): "Smart call, {user_name}. Let's finish those stories first and then have a proper retrospective."
    </output>
    <action>HALT</action>
  </check>

<action if="user says yes">Set {{partial_retrospective}} = true</action> <output> Charlie (Senior Dev): "Just so everyone knows, this partial retro might miss some important lessons from those pending stories."

Amelia (Developer): "Good point, Charlie. {user_name}, we'll document what we can now, but we may want to revisit after everything's done." </output> </check>

<check if="epic is complete">
  <output>
Alice (Product Owner): "Excellent! All {{done_stories}} stories are marked done."

Amelia (Developer): "Perfect. Epic {{epic_number}} is complete and ready for retrospective, {user_name}." </output> </check>

</step>

<step n="2" goal="Discover and load project documents">
  <action>Load input files according to the Input Files table above. For SELECTIVE_LOAD inputs, load only the epic matching {{epic_number}}. For FULL_LOAD inputs, load the complete document. For INDEX_GUIDED inputs, check the index first and load relevant sections. After discovery, these content variables are available: {epics_content} (selective load for this epic), {architecture_content}, {prd_content}, {document_project_content}</action>
  <note>After discovery, these content variables are available: {epics_content} (selective load for this epic), {architecture_content}, {prd_content}, {document_project_content}</note>
</step>

<step n="3" goal="Deep Story Analysis - Extract Lessons from Implementation">

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Before we start the team discussion, let me review all the story records to surface key themes. This'll help us have a richer conversation."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "Good idea - those dev notes always have gold in them." </output>

<action>For each story in epic {{epic_number}}, read the complete story file from {implementation_artifacts}/{{epic_number}}-{{story_num}}-*.md</action>

<action>Extract and analyze from each story:</action>

Dev Notes and Struggles:

• Look for sections like "## Dev Notes", "## Implementation Notes", "## Challenges", "## Development Log"
• Identify where developers struggled or made mistakes
• Note unexpected complexity or gotchas discovered
• Record technical decisions that didn't work out as planned
• Track where estimates were way off (too high or too low)

Review Feedback Patterns:

• Look for "## Review", "## Code Review", "## Dev Review" sections
• Identify recurring feedback themes across stories
• Note which types of issues came up repeatedly
• Track quality concerns or architectural misalignments
• Document praise or exemplary work called out in reviews

Lessons Learned:

• Look for "## Lessons Learned", "## Retrospective Notes", "## Takeaways" sections within stories
• Extract explicit lessons documented during development
• Identify "aha moments" or breakthroughs
• Note what would be done differently
• Track successful experiments or approaches

Technical Debt Incurred:

• Look for "## Technical Debt", "## TODO", "## Known Issues", "## Future Work" sections
• Document shortcuts taken and why
• Track debt items that affect next epic
• Note severity and priority of debt items

Testing and Quality Insights:

• Look for "## Testing", "## QA Notes", "## Test Results" sections
• Note testing challenges or surprises
• Track bug patterns or regression issues
• Document test coverage gaps

<action>Synthesize patterns across all stories:</action>

Common Struggles:

• Identify issues that appeared in 2+ stories (e.g., "3 out of 5 stories had API authentication issues")
• Note areas where team consistently struggled
• Track where complexity was underestimated

Recurring Review Feedback:

• Identify feedback themes (e.g., "Error handling was flagged in every review")
• Note quality patterns (positive and negative)
• Track areas where team improved over the course of epic

Breakthrough Moments:

• Document key discoveries (e.g., "Story 3 discovered the caching pattern we used for rest of epic")
• Note when team velocity improved dramatically
• Track innovative solutions worth repeating

Velocity Patterns:

• Calculate average completion time per story
• Note velocity trends (e.g., "First 2 stories took 3x longer than estimated")
• Identify which types of stories went faster/slower

Team Collaboration Highlights:

• Note moments of excellent collaboration mentioned in stories
• Track where pair programming or mob programming was effective
• Document effective problem-solving sessions

<action>Store this synthesis - these patterns will drive the retrospective discussion</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Okay, I've reviewed all {{total_stories}} story records. I found some really interesting patterns we should discuss."

Dana (QA Engineer): "I'm curious what you found, Amelia. I noticed some things in my testing too."

Amelia (Developer): "We'll get to all of it. But first, let me load the previous epic's retro to see if we learned from last time." </output>

</step>

<step n="4" goal="Load and Integrate Previous Epic Retrospective">

<action>Calculate previous epic number: {{prev_epic_num}} = {{epic_number}} - 1</action>

<check if="{{prev_epic_num}} >= 1">
  <action>Search for previous retrospectives using pattern: {implementation_artifacts}/epic-{{prev_epic_num}}-retro-*.md</action>

  <check if="previous retrospectives found">
    <output>
Amelia (Developer): "I found our retrospectives from Epic {{prev_epic_num}}. Let me see what we committed to back then..."
    </output>

<action>Read the previous retrospectives</action>

<action>Extract key elements:</action>
- **Action items committed**: What did the team agree to improve?
- **Lessons learned**: What insights were captured?
- **Process improvements**: What changes were agreed upon?
- **Technical debt flagged**: What debt was documented?
- **Team agreements**: What commitments were made?
- **Preparation tasks**: What was needed for this epic?

<action>Cross-reference with current epic execution:</action>

**Action Item Follow-Through:**
- For each action item from Epic {{prev_epic_num}} retro, check if it was completed
- Cross-check the action_items section in {sprint_status_file} (if present) for Epic {{prev_epic_num}} entries and their current status
- Look for evidence in current epic's story records
- Mark each action item: ✅ Completed, ⏳ In Progress, ❌ Not Addressed

**Lessons Applied:**
- For each lesson from Epic {{prev_epic_num}}, check if team applied it in Epic {{epic_number}}
- Look for evidence in dev notes, review feedback, or outcomes
- Document successes and missed opportunities

**Process Improvements Effectiveness:**
- For each process change agreed to in Epic {{prev_epic_num}}, assess if it helped
- Did the change improve velocity, quality, or team satisfaction?
- Should we keep, modify, or abandon the change?

**Technical Debt Status:**
- For each debt item from Epic {{prev_epic_num}}, check if it was addressed
- Did unaddressed debt cause problems in Epic {{epic_number}}?
- Did the debt grow or shrink?

<action>Prepare "continuity insights" for the retrospective discussion</action>

<action>Identify wins where previous lessons were applied successfully:</action>
- Document specific examples of applied learnings
- Note positive impact on Epic {{epic_number}} outcomes
- Celebrate team growth and improvement

<action>Identify missed opportunities where previous lessons were ignored:</action>
- Document where team repeated previous mistakes
- Note impact of not applying lessons (without blame)
- Explore barriers that prevented application

<output>

Amelia (Developer): "Interesting... in Epic {{prev_epic_num}}'s retro, we committed to {{action_count}} action items."

Alice (Product Owner): "How'd we do on those, Amelia?"

Amelia (Developer): "We completed {{completed_count}}, made progress on {{in_progress_count}}, but didn't address {{not_addressed_count}}."

Charlie (Senior Dev): looking concerned "Which ones didn't we address?"

Amelia (Developer): "We'll discuss that in the retro. Some of them might explain challenges we had this epic."

Elena (Junior Dev): "That's... actually pretty insightful."

Amelia (Developer): "That's why we track this stuff. Pattern recognition helps us improve." </output>

  </check>

  <check if="no previous retro found">
    <output>
Amelia (Developer): "I don't see a retrospective for Epic {{prev_epic_num}}. Either we skipped it, or this is your first retro."

Alice (Product Owner): "Probably our first one. Good time to start the habit!" </output> <action>Set {{first_retrospective}} = true</action> </check> </check>

<check if="{{prev_epic_num}} < 1">
  <output>
Amelia (Developer): "This is Epic 1, so naturally there's no previous retro to reference. We're starting fresh!"

Charlie (Senior Dev): "First epic, first retro. Let's make it count." </output> <action>Set {{first_retrospective}} = true</action> </check>

</step>

<step n="5" goal="Preview Next Epic with Change Detection">

<action>Calculate next epic number: {{next_epic_num}} = {{epic_number}} + 1</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Before we dive into the discussion, let me take a quick look at Epic {{next_epic_num}} to understand what's coming."

Alice (Product Owner): "Good thinking - helps us connect what we learned to what we're about to do." </output>

<action>Attempt to load next epic using selective loading strategy:</action>

Try sharded first (more specific): <action>Check if file exists: {planning_artifacts}/epic*/epic-{{next_epic_num}}.md</action>

<check if="sharded epic file found">
  <action>Load {planning_artifacts}/*epic*/epic-{{next_epic_num}}.md</action>
  <action>Set {{next_epic_source}} = "sharded"</action>
</check>

Fallback to whole document: <check if="sharded epic not found"> <action>Check if file exists: {planning_artifacts}/epic*.md</action>

  <check if="whole epic file found">
    <action>Load entire epics document</action>
    <action>Extract Epic {{next_epic_num}} section</action>
    <action>Set {{next_epic_source}} = "whole"</action>
  </check>
</check>

<check if="next epic found">
  <action>Analyze next epic for:</action>
  - Epic title and objectives
  - Planned stories and complexity estimates
  - Dependencies on Epic {{epic_number}} work
  - New technical requirements or capabilities needed
  - Potential risks or unknowns
  - Business goals and success criteria

<action>Identify dependencies on completed work:</action>

• What components from Epic {{epic_number}} does Epic {{next_epic_num}} rely on?
• Are all prerequisites complete and stable?
• Any incomplete work that creates blocking dependencies?

<action>Note potential gaps or preparation needed:</action>

• Technical setup required (infrastructure, tools, libraries)
• Knowledge gaps to fill (research, training, spikes)
• Refactoring needed before starting next epic
• Documentation or specifications to create

<action>Check for technical prerequisites:</action>

• APIs or integrations that must be ready

• Data migrations or schema changes needed

• Testing infrastructure requirements

• Deployment or environment setup

  <output>
  Amelia (Developer): "Alright, I've reviewed Epic {{next_epic_num}}: '{{next_epic_title}}'"

Alice (Product Owner): "What are we looking at?"

Amelia (Developer): "{{next_epic_num}} stories planned, building on the {{dependency_description}} from Epic {{epic_number}}."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "Dependencies concern me. Did we finish everything we need for that?"

Amelia (Developer): "Good question - that's exactly what we need to explore in this retro." </output>

<action>Set {{next_epic_exists}} = true</action> </check>

<check if="next epic NOT found">
  <output>
Amelia (Developer): "Hmm, I don't see Epic {{next_epic_num}} defined yet."

Alice (Product Owner): "We might be at the end of the roadmap, or we haven't planned that far ahead yet."

Amelia (Developer): "No problem. We'll still do a thorough retro on Epic {{epic_number}}. The lessons will be valuable whenever we plan the next work." </output>

<action>Set {{next_epic_exists}} = false</action> </check>

</step>

<step n="6" goal="Initialize Retrospective with Rich Context">

<action>Load agent roster from {agent_roster}</action> <action>Identify which agents participated in Epic {{epic_number}} based on story records</action> <action>Ensure key roles present: Product Owner, Developer (facilitating), Testing/QA, Architect</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Alright team, everyone's here. Let me set the stage for our retrospective."

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 🔄 TEAM RETROSPECTIVE - Epic {{epic_number}}: {{epic_title}} ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Amelia (Developer): "Here's what we accomplished together."

EPIC {{epic_number}} SUMMARY:

Delivery Metrics:

• Completed: {{completed_stories}}/{{total_stories}} stories ({{completion_percentage}}%)
• Velocity: {{actual_points}} story points{{#if planned_points}} (planned: {{planned_points}}){{/if}}
• Duration: {{actual_sprints}} sprints{{#if planned_sprints}} (planned: {{planned_sprints}}){{/if}}
• Average velocity: {{points_per_sprint}} points/sprint

Quality and Technical:

• Blockers encountered: {{blocker_count}}
• Technical debt items: {{debt_count}}
• Test coverage: {{coverage_info}}
• Production incidents: {{incident_count}}

Business Outcomes:

• Goals achieved: {{goals_met}}/{{total_goals}}
• Success criteria: {{criteria_status}}
• Stakeholder feedback: {{feedback_summary}}

Alice (Product Owner): "Those numbers tell a good story. {{completion_percentage}}% completion is {{#if completion_percentage >= 90}}excellent{{else}}something we should discuss{{/if}}."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "I'm more interested in that technical debt number - {{debt_count}} items is {{#if debt_count > 10}}concerning{{else}}manageable{{/if}}."

Dana (QA Engineer): "{{incident_count}} production incidents - {{#if incident_count == 0}}clean epic!{{else}}we should talk about those{{/if}}."

{{#if next_epic_exists}} ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ NEXT EPIC PREVIEW: Epic {{next_epic_num}}: {{next_epic_title}} ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Dependencies on Epic {{epic_number}}: {{list_dependencies}}

Preparation Needed: {{list_preparation_gaps}}

Technical Prerequisites: {{list_technical_prereqs}}

Amelia (Developer): "And here's what's coming next. Epic {{next_epic_num}} builds on what we just finished."

Elena (Junior Dev): "Wow, that's a lot of dependencies on our work."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "Which means we better make sure Epic {{epic_number}} is actually solid before moving on." {{/if}}

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Amelia (Developer): "Team assembled for this retrospective:"

{{list_participating_agents}}

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, you're joining us as Project Lead. Your perspective is crucial here."

{user_name} (Project Lead): [Participating in the retrospective]

Amelia (Developer): "Our focus today:"

1. Learning from Epic {{epic_number}} execution {{#if next_epic_exists}}2. Preparing for Epic {{next_epic_num}} success{{/if}}

Amelia (Developer): "Ground rules: psychological safety first. No blame, no judgment. We focus on systems and processes, not individuals. Everyone's voice matters. Specific examples are better than generalizations."

Alice (Product Owner): "And everything shared here stays in this room - unless we decide together to escalate something."

Amelia (Developer): "Exactly. {user_name}, any questions before we dive in?" </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to respond or indicate readiness</action>

</step>

<step n="7" goal="Epic Review Discussion - What Went Well, What Didn't">

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Let's start with the good stuff. What went well in Epic {{epic_number}}?"

Amelia (Developer): pauses, creating space

Alice (Product Owner): "I'll start. The user authentication flow we delivered exceeded my expectations. The UX is smooth, and early user feedback has been really positive."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "I'll add to that - the caching strategy we implemented in Story {{breakthrough_story_num}} was a game-changer. We cut API calls by 60% and it set the pattern for the rest of the epic."

Dana (QA Engineer): "From my side, testing went smoother than usual. The Developer's documentation was way better this epic - actually usable test plans!"

Elena (Junior Dev): smiling "That's because Charlie made me document everything after Story 1's code review!"

Charlie (Senior Dev): laughing "Tough love pays off." </output>

<action>Amelia (Developer) naturally turns to {user_name} to engage them in the discussion</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, what stood out to you as going well in this epic?"
</output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to respond - this is a KEY USER INTERACTION moment</action>

<action>After {user_name} responds, have 1-2 team members react to or build on what {user_name} shared</action>

<output>
Alice (Product Owner): [Responds naturally to what {user_name} said, either agreeing, adding context, or offering a different perspective]

Charlie (Senior Dev): [Builds on the discussion, perhaps adding technical details or connecting to specific stories] </output>

<action>Continue facilitating natural dialogue, periodically bringing {user_name} back into the conversation</action>

<action>After covering successes, guide the transition to challenges with care</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Okay, we've celebrated some real wins. Now let's talk about challenges - where did we struggle? What slowed us down?"

Amelia (Developer): creates safe space with tone and pacing

Elena (Junior Dev): hesitates "Well... I really struggled with the database migrations in Story {{difficult_story_num}}. The documentation wasn't clear, and I had to redo it three times. Lost almost a full sprint on that story alone."

Charlie (Senior Dev): defensive "Hold on - I wrote those migration docs, and they were perfectly clear. The issue was that the requirements kept changing mid-story!"

Alice (Product Owner): frustrated "That's not fair, Charlie. We only clarified requirements once, and that was because the technical team didn't ask the right questions during planning!"

Charlie (Senior Dev): heat rising "We asked plenty of questions! You said the schema was finalized, then two days into development you wanted to add three new fields!"

Amelia (Developer): intervening calmly "Let's take a breath here. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to unpack."

Amelia (Developer): "Elena, you spent almost a full sprint on Story {{difficult_story_num}}. Charlie, you're saying requirements changed. Alice, you feel the right questions weren't asked up front."

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, you have visibility across the whole project. What's your take on this situation?" </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to respond and help facilitate the conflict resolution</action>

<action>Use {user_name}'s response to guide the discussion toward systemic understanding rather than blame</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): [Synthesizes {user_name}'s input with what the team shared] "So it sounds like the core issue was {{root_cause_based_on_discussion}}, not any individual person's fault."

Elena (Junior Dev): "That makes sense. If we'd had {{preventive_measure}}, I probably could have avoided those redos."

Charlie (Senior Dev): softening "Yeah, and I could have been clearer about assumptions in the docs. Sorry for getting defensive, Alice."

Alice (Product Owner): "I appreciate that. I could've been more proactive about flagging the schema additions earlier, too."

Amelia (Developer): "This is good. We're identifying systemic improvements, not assigning blame." </output>

<action>Continue the discussion, weaving in patterns discovered from the deep story analysis (Step 3)</action>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Speaking of patterns, I noticed something when reviewing all the story records..."

Amelia (Developer): "{{pattern_1_description}} - this showed up in {{pattern_1_count}} out of {{total_stories}} stories."

Dana (QA Engineer): "Oh wow, I didn't realize it was that widespread."

Amelia (Developer): "Yeah. And there's more - {{pattern_2_description}} came up in almost every code review."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "That's... actually embarrassing. We should've caught that pattern earlier."

Amelia (Developer): "No shame, Charlie. Now we know, and we can improve. {user_name}, did you notice these patterns during the epic?" </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to share their observations</action>

<action>Continue the retrospective discussion, creating moments where:</action>

• Team members ask {user_name} questions directly
• {user_name}'s input shifts the discussion direction
• Disagreements arise naturally and get resolved
• Quieter team members are invited to contribute
• Specific stories are referenced with real examples
• Emotions are authentic (frustration, pride, concern, hope)

<check if="previous retrospective exists">
  <output>
Amelia (Developer): "Before we move on, I want to circle back to Epic {{prev_epic_num}}'s retrospective."

Amelia (Developer): "We made some commitments in that retro. Let's see how we did."

Amelia (Developer): "Action item 1: {{prev_action_1}}. Status: {{prev_action_1_status}}"

Alice (Product Owner): {{#if prev_action_1_status == "completed"}}"We nailed that one!"{{else}}"We... didn't do that one."{{/if}}

Charlie (Senior Dev): {{#if prev_action_1_status == "completed"}}"And it helped! I noticed {{evidence_of_impact}}"{{else}}"Yeah, and I think that's why we had {{consequence_of_not_doing_it}} this epic."{{/if}}

Amelia (Developer): "Action item 2: {{prev_action_2}}. Status: {{prev_action_2_status}}"

Dana (QA Engineer): {{#if prev_action_2_status == "completed"}}"This one made testing so much easier this time."{{else}}"If we'd done this, I think testing would've gone faster."{{/if}}

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, looking at what we committed to last time and what we actually did - what's your reaction?" </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to respond</action>

<action>Use the previous retro follow-through as a learning moment about commitment and accountability</action> </check>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Alright, we've covered a lot of ground. Let me summarize what I'm hearing..."

Amelia (Developer): "Successes:" {{list_success_themes}}

Amelia (Developer): "Challenges:" {{list_challenge_themes}}

Amelia (Developer): "Key Insights:" {{list_insight_themes}}

Amelia (Developer): "Does that capture it? Anyone have something important we missed?" </output>

<action>Allow team members to add any final thoughts on the epic review</action> <action>Ensure {user_name} has opportunity to add their perspective</action>

</step>

<step n="8" goal="Next Epic Preparation Discussion - Interactive and Collaborative">

<check if="{{next_epic_exists}} == false">
  <output>
Amelia (Developer): "Normally we'd discuss preparing for the next epic, but since Epic {{next_epic_num}} isn't defined yet, let's skip to action items."
  </output>
  <action>Skip to Step 9</action>
</check>

<output>
Amelia (Developer): "Now let's shift gears. Epic {{next_epic_num}} is coming up: '{{next_epic_title}}'"

Amelia (Developer): "The question is: are we ready? What do we need to prepare?"

Alice (Product Owner): "From my perspective, we need to make sure {{dependency_concern_1}} from Epic {{epic_number}} is solid before we start building on it."

Charlie (Senior Dev): concerned "I'm worried about {{technical_concern_1}}. We have {{technical_debt_item}} from this epic that'll blow up if we don't address it before Epic {{next_epic_num}}."

Dana (QA Engineer): "And I need {{testing_infrastructure_need}} in place, or we're going to have the same testing bottleneck we had in Story {{bottleneck_story_num}}."

Elena (Junior Dev): "I'm less worried about infrastructure and more about knowledge. I don't understand {{knowledge_gap}} well enough to work on Epic {{next_epic_num}}'s stories."

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, the team is surfacing some real concerns here. What's your sense of our readiness?" </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to share their assessment</action>

<action>Use {user_name}'s input to guide deeper exploration of preparation needs</action>

<output>
Alice (Product Owner): [Reacts to what {user_name} said] "I agree with {user_name} about {{point_of_agreement}}, but I'm still worried about {{lingering_concern}}."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "Here's what I think we need technically before Epic {{next_epic_num}} can start..."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "1. {{tech_prep_item_1}} - estimated {{hours_1}} hours" Charlie (Senior Dev): "2. {{tech_prep_item_2}} - estimated {{hours_2}} hours" Charlie (Senior Dev): "3. {{tech_prep_item_3}} - estimated {{hours_3}} hours"

Elena (Junior Dev): "That's like {{total_hours}} hours! That's a full sprint of prep work!"

Charlie (Senior Dev): "Exactly. We can't just jump into Epic {{next_epic_num}} on Monday."

Alice (Product Owner): frustrated "But we have stakeholder pressure to keep shipping features. They're not going to be happy about a 'prep sprint.'"

Amelia (Developer): "Let's think about this differently. What happens if we DON'T do this prep work?"

Dana (QA Engineer): "We'll hit blockers in the middle of Epic {{next_epic_num}}, velocity will tank, and we'll ship late anyway."

Charlie (Senior Dev): "Worse - we'll ship something built on top of {{technical_concern_1}}, and it'll be fragile."

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, you're balancing stakeholder pressure against technical reality. How do you want to handle this?" </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to provide direction on preparation approach</action>

<action>Create space for debate and disagreement about priorities</action>

<output>
Alice (Product Owner): [Potentially disagrees with {user_name}'s approach] "I hear what you're saying, {user_name}, but from a business perspective, {{business_concern}}."

Charlie (Senior Dev): [Potentially supports or challenges Alice's point] "The business perspective is valid, but {{technical_counter_argument}}."

Amelia (Developer): "We have healthy tension here between business needs and technical reality. That's good - it means we're being honest."

Amelia (Developer): "Let's explore a middle ground. Charlie, which of your prep items are absolutely critical vs. nice-to-have?"

Charlie (Senior Dev): "{{critical_prep_item_1}} and {{critical_prep_item_2}} are non-negotiable. {{nice_to_have_prep_item}} can wait."

Alice (Product Owner): "And can any of the critical prep happen in parallel with starting Epic {{next_epic_num}}?"

Charlie (Senior Dev): thinking "Maybe. If we tackle {{first_critical_item}} before the epic starts, we could do {{second_critical_item}} during the first sprint."

Dana (QA Engineer): "But that means Story 1 of Epic {{next_epic_num}} can't depend on {{second_critical_item}}."

Alice (Product Owner): looking at epic plan "Actually, Stories 1 and 2 are about {{independent_work}}, so they don't depend on it. We could make that work."

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, the team is finding a workable compromise here. Does this approach make sense to you?" </output>

<action>WAIT for {user_name} to validate or adjust the preparation strategy</action>

<action>Continue working through preparation needs across all dimensions:</action>

• Dependencies on Epic {{epic_number}} work
• Technical setup and infrastructure
• Knowledge gaps and research needs
• Documentation or specification work
• Testing infrastructure
• Refactoring or debt reduction
• External dependencies (APIs, integrations, etc.)

<action>For each preparation area, facilitate team discussion that:</action>

• Identifies specific needs with concrete examples
• Estimates effort realistically based on Epic {{epic_number}} experience
• Assigns ownership to specific agents
• Determines criticality and timing
• Surfaces risks of NOT doing the preparation
• Explores parallel work opportunities
• Brings {user_name} in for key decisions