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

Explain to {user_name} the epic discovery process using natural dialogue

PRIORITY 1: Check {sprint_status_file} first

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

WAIT for {user_name} to confirm or correct

WAIT for {user_name} to provide epic number Set {{epic_number}} = user-provided number

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

WAIT for {user_name} to confirm or correct Set {{epic_number}} = confirmed number

Once {{epic_number}} is determined, verify epic completion status

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")

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

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

Continue with incomplete epic? (yes/no)

Set {{partial_retrospective}} = true 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."

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

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

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

Extract and analyze from each story:

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

Synthesize patterns across all stories:

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

Store this synthesis - these patterns will drive the retrospective discussion

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."

Calculate previous epic number: {{prev_epic_num}} = {{epic_number}} - 1

<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."

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

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

Calculate next epic number: {{next_epic_num}} = {{epic_number}} + 1

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

Attempt to load next epic using selective loading strategy:

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

Fallback to whole document: Check if file exists: {planning_artifacts}/epic*.md

Identify dependencies on completed work:

• 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?

Note potential gaps or preparation needed:

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

Check for technical prerequisites:

• APIs or integrations that must be ready

• Data migrations or schema changes needed

• Testing infrastructure requirements

• Deployment or environment setup

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."

Set {{next_epic_exists}} = true

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."

Set {{next_epic_exists}} = false

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

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 🔄 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?"

WAIT for {user_name} to respond or indicate readiness

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."

Amelia (Developer) naturally turns to {user_name} to engage them in the discussion

WAIT for {user_name} to respond - this is a KEY USER INTERACTION moment

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

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

Continue facilitating natural dialogue, periodically bringing {user_name} back into the conversation

After covering successes, guide the transition to challenges with care

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?"

WAIT for {user_name} to respond and help facilitate the conflict resolution

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

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."

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

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?"

WAIT for {user_name} to share their observations

Continue the retrospective discussion, creating moments where:

• 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)

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?"

WAIT for {user_name} to respond

Use the previous retro follow-through as a learning moment about commitment and accountability

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?"

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

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?"

WAIT for {user_name} to share their assessment

Use {user_name}'s input to guide deeper exploration of preparation needs

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?"

WAIT for {user_name} to provide direction on preparation approach

Create space for debate and disagreement about priorities

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?"

WAIT for {user_name} to validate or adjust the preparation strategy

Continue working through preparation needs across all dimensions:

• 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.)

For each preparation area, facilitate team discussion that:

• 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

CRITICAL PREPARATION (Must complete before epic starts): {{list_critical_prep_items_with_owners_and_estimates}}

PARALLEL PREPARATION (Can happen during early stories): {{list_parallel_prep_items_with_owners_and_estimates}}

NICE-TO-HAVE PREPARATION (Would help but not blocking): {{list_nice_to_have_prep_items}}

Amelia (Developer): "Total critical prep effort: {{critical_hours}} hours ({{critical_days}} days)"

Alice (Product Owner): "That's manageable. We can communicate that to stakeholders."

Amelia (Developer): "{user_name}, does this preparation plan work for you?"

WAIT for {user_name} final validation of preparation plan

Amelia (Developer): "I want specific, achievable actions with clear owners. Not vague aspirations."

Synthesize themes from Epic {{epic_number}} review discussion into actionable improvements

Create specific action items with:

• Clear description of the action
• Assigned owner (specific agent or role)
• Timeline or deadline
• Success criteria (how we'll know it's done)
• Category (process, technical, documentation, team, etc.)

Ensure action items are SMART:

• Specific: Clear and unambiguous
• Measurable: Can verify completion
• Achievable: Realistic given constraints
• Relevant: Addresses real issues from retro
• Time-bound: Has clear deadline

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ 📝 EPIC {{epic_number}} ACTION ITEMS: ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Process Improvements:

1. {{action_item_1}} Owner: {{agent_1}} Deadline: {{timeline_1}} Success criteria: {{criteria_1}}

2. {{action_item_2}} Owner: {{agent_2}} Deadline: {{timeline_2}} Success criteria: {{criteria_2}}

Charlie (Senior Dev): "I can own action item 1, but {{timeline_1}} is tight. Can we push it to {{alternative_timeline}}?"

Amelia (Developer): "What do others think? Does that timing still work?"

Alice (Product Owner): "{{altern

…(truncated)