Add 5 new core command templates inspired by Garry Tan's GStack to complete the spec-driven development lifecycle: - /speckit.critique: Dual-lens product + engineering review before implementation - /speckit.review: Staff-level code review (correctness, security, performance) - /speckit.qa: Systematic QA testing (browser-driven and CLI modes) - /speckit.ship: Release automation (pre-flight, changelog, CI, PR creation) - /speckit.retro: Sprint retrospective with metrics and improvement suggestions Each command includes: - Command template in templates/commands/ - Output report template in templates/ - Extension hook support (before_*/after_*) - YAML frontmatter with prerequisite scripts Updated README.md workflow from 6 to 11 steps and added CHANGELOG entry. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
11 KiB
description, scripts
| description | scripts | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conduct a structured retrospective analysis of the completed development cycle with metrics, learnings, and improvement suggestions. |
|
User Input
$ARGUMENTS
You MUST consider the user input before proceeding (if not empty).
Pre-Execution Checks
Check for extension hooks (before retro):
- Check if
.specify/extensions.ymlexists in the project root. - If it exists, read it and look for entries under the
hooks.before_retrokey - If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
- Filter out hooks where
enabledis explicitlyfalse. Treat hooks without anenabledfield as enabled by default. - For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook
conditionexpressions:- If the hook has no
conditionfield, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable - If the hook defines a non-empty
condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
- If the hook has no
- For each executable hook, output the following based on its
optionalflag:- Optional hook (
optional: true):## Extension Hooks **Optional Pre-Hook**: {extension} Command: `/{command}` Description: {description} Prompt: {prompt} To execute: `/{command}` - Mandatory hook (
optional: false):## Extension Hooks **Automatic Pre-Hook**: {extension} Executing: `/{command}` EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command} Wait for the result of the hook command before proceeding to the Outline.
- Optional hook (
- If no hooks are registered or
.specify/extensions.ymldoes not exist, skip silently
Goal
Conduct a structured retrospective analysis of the completed development cycle — from specification through shipping. Analyze what went well, what didn't, and generate actionable improvement suggestions for future iterations. Track metrics over time to identify trends and continuously improve the spec-driven development process.
Operating Constraints
CONSTRUCTIVE FOCUS: The retrospective should be balanced — celebrating successes alongside identifying improvements. Avoid blame; focus on process improvements.
DATA-DRIVEN: Base analysis on actual artifacts, git history, and measurable outcomes rather than subjective impressions.
OPTIONAL WRITES: The retro report is always written. Updates to constitution.md with new learnings are offered but require explicit user approval.
Outline
-
Run
{SCRIPT}from repo root and parse FEATURE_DIR and AVAILABLE_DOCS list. All paths must be absolute. For single quotes in args like "I'm Groot", use escape syntax: e.g 'I'''m Groot' (or double-quote if possible: "I'm Groot"). -
Gather Retrospective Data: Load all available artifacts from the development cycle:
- REQUIRED: Read
spec.md— original specification and requirements - REQUIRED: Read
tasks.md— task breakdown and completion status - IF EXISTS: Read
plan.md— technical plan and architecture decisions - IF EXISTS: Read review reports in FEATURE_DIR/reviews/ — code review findings
- IF EXISTS: Read QA reports in FEATURE_DIR/qa/ — testing results
- IF EXISTS: Read release artifacts in FEATURE_DIR/releases/ — shipping data
- IF EXISTS: Read critique reports in FEATURE_DIR/critiques/ — pre-implementation review
- IF EXISTS: Read previous retros in FEATURE_DIR/retros/ — historical context
- IF EXISTS: Read
/memory/constitution.md— project principles
- REQUIRED: Read
-
Collect Git Metrics: Gather quantitative data from the git history:
# Commit count for the feature git rev-list --count origin/{target_branch}..HEAD # Files changed git diff --stat origin/{target_branch}..HEAD # Lines added/removed git diff --shortstat origin/{target_branch}..HEAD # Number of authors git log origin/{target_branch}..HEAD --format='%an' | sort -u | wc -l # Date range (first commit to last) git log origin/{target_branch}..HEAD --format='%ai' | tail -1 git log origin/{target_branch}..HEAD --format='%ai' | head -1If git data is not available (e.g., already merged), use artifact timestamps and content analysis as fallback.
-
Specification Accuracy Analysis: Compare the original spec against what was actually built:
- Requirements fulfilled: Count of spec requirements that were fully implemented
- Requirements partially fulfilled: Requirements that were implemented with deviations
- Requirements not implemented: Spec items that were deferred or dropped
- Unplanned additions: Features implemented that were NOT in the original spec (scope creep)
- Surprises: Requirements that turned out to be much harder or easier than expected
- Accuracy score: (fulfilled + partial×0.5) / total requirements × 100%
-
Plan Effectiveness Analysis: Evaluate how well the technical plan guided implementation:
- Architecture decisions validated: Did the chosen patterns/stack work as planned?
- Architecture decisions revised: Were any plan decisions changed during implementation?
- Task scoping accuracy: Were tasks well-sized? Any tasks that were much larger/smaller than expected?
- Missing tasks: Were any tasks added during implementation that weren't in the original breakdown?
- Task ordering issues: Were there dependency problems or tasks that should have been reordered?
- Plan score: Qualitative assessment (EXCELLENT / GOOD / ADEQUATE / NEEDS IMPROVEMENT)
-
Implementation Quality Analysis: Analyze the quality of the implementation based on review and QA data:
- Review findings summary: Total findings by severity from review reports
- Blocker resolution: Were all blockers resolved before shipping?
- QA results summary: Pass/fail rates from QA testing
- Test coverage: Test suite results and coverage metrics
- Code quality indicators: Lines of code, test-to-code ratio, cyclomatic complexity (if available)
- Quality score: Based on review verdict and QA pass rate
-
Process Metrics Dashboard: Compile a metrics summary:
📊 Development Cycle Metrics ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ Feature: {feature_name} Duration: {first_commit} → {last_commit} 📝 Specification Requirements: {total} total, {fulfilled} fulfilled, {partial} partial Spec Accuracy: {accuracy}% 📋 Planning Tasks: {total_tasks} total, {completed} completed Added during impl: {unplanned_tasks} Plan Score: {plan_score} 💻 Implementation Commits: {commit_count} Files changed: {files_changed} Lines: +{additions} / -{deletions} Test/Code ratio: {test_ratio} 🔍 Quality Review findings: 🔴{blockers} 🟡{warnings} 🟢{suggestions} QA pass rate: {qa_pass_rate}% Quality Score: {quality_score} -
What Went Well (Keep Doing): Identify and celebrate successes:
- Aspects of the spec that were clear and led to smooth implementation
- Architecture decisions that proved effective
- Tasks that were well-scoped and completed without issues
- Quality practices that caught real issues
- Any particularly efficient or elegant solutions
-
What Could Improve (Start/Stop Doing): Identify areas for improvement:
- Spec gaps that caused confusion or rework during implementation
- Plan decisions that needed revision
- Tasks that were poorly scoped or had missing dependencies
- Quality issues that slipped through review/QA
- Process friction points (tool issues, unclear workflows)
-
Actionable Improvement Suggestions: Generate specific, actionable suggestions:
- Rank by impact (HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW)
- Each suggestion should be concrete and implementable
- Group by category: Specification, Planning, Implementation, Quality, Process
Example format:
IMP-001 [HIGH] Add data model validation to spec template → The spec lacked entity relationship details, causing 3 unplanned tasks during implementation. → Suggestion: Add a "Data Model" section to the spec template with entity, attribute, and relationship requirements. IMP-002 [MEDIUM] Include browser compatibility in QA checklist → QA missed a CSS rendering issue in Safari that was caught post-merge. → Suggestion: Add cross-browser testing scenarios to the QA test plan. -
Historical Trend Analysis (if previous retros exist): If FEATURE_DIR/retros/ contains previous retrospective reports:
- Compare key metrics across cycles (spec accuracy, QA pass rate, review findings)
- Identify improving trends (celebrate!) and declining trends (flag for attention)
- Check if previous improvement suggestions were adopted and whether they helped
- Output a trend summary table
-
Generate Retrospective Report: Create the retro report at
FEATURE_DIR/retros/retro-{timestamp}.mdusing the retrospective report template. -
Offer Constitution Update: Based on the retrospective findings, offer to update
/memory/constitution.mdwith new learnings:- "Based on this retrospective, I suggest adding the following principles to your constitution:"
- List specific principle additions or modifications
- Wait for explicit user approval before making any changes
- If approved, append new principles with a "Learned from: {feature_name} retro" annotation
-
Suggest Next Actions:
- If this was a successful cycle: "Great work! Consider starting your next feature with
/speckit.specify" - If improvements were identified: List the top 3 most impactful improvements to adopt
- If trends are declining: Recommend a process review or team discussion
- If this was a successful cycle: "Great work! Consider starting your next feature with
Check for extension hooks (after retro):
- Check if
.specify/extensions.ymlexists in the project root. - If it exists, read it and look for entries under the
hooks.after_retrokey - If the YAML cannot be parsed or is invalid, skip hook checking silently and continue normally
- Filter out hooks where
enabledis explicitlyfalse. Treat hooks without anenabledfield as enabled by default. - For each remaining hook, do not attempt to interpret or evaluate hook
conditionexpressions:- If the hook has no
conditionfield, or it is null/empty, treat the hook as executable - If the hook defines a non-empty
condition, skip the hook and leave condition evaluation to the HookExecutor implementation
- If the hook has no
- For each executable hook, output the following based on its
optionalflag:- Optional hook (
optional: true):## Extension Hooks **Optional Hook**: {extension} Command: `/{command}` Description: {description} Prompt: {prompt} To execute: `/{command}` - Mandatory hook (
optional: false):## Extension Hooks **Automatic Hook**: {extension} Executing: `/{command}` EXECUTE_COMMAND: {command}
- Optional hook (
- If no hooks are registered or
.specify/extensions.ymldoes not exist, skip silently