Interaction retrospective

Interaction Retrospective

Retrospective Boundary

This skill turns an interaction record into a persistence decision. It determines whether a durable lesson exists and, if so, the portable behavior, supported reach, and owning guidance source. Treat explicit user choices and already-established targets as inputs. Supply the lesson and its evidence-backed requirements without deciding the target artifact's structure beyond its governing schema and conventions.

Interaction Evidence Questions

• What future agent behavior is the user trying to improve or preserve?
• Which stage needs to differ: activation, context gathering, judgment, action, validation, communication, or another identified stage?
• Which agent choices, user corrections or endorsements, and outcomes show what helped or hindered the result?
• Which instructions, files, conventions, tool outputs, or prior messages were available, and how did the observed behavior respond to them?
• Which parts of the interaction reflect a legitimate choice, changing scope, subjective judgment, or context that only the user could supply, and which reveal a reusable behavior gap?
• What did convergence or success reveal: a portable practice or only a solution specific to this interaction?

Persistence Questions

• What has the user or an already-established task decision fixed about persistence, scope, or destination?
• Would durable guidance improve relevant future behavior, or is the lesson a one-off event, too uncertain, or already governed adequately?
• If guidance already expresses the desired behavior, was the problem its application rather than a missing or inaccurate rule?
• What interaction evidence or explicit persistence request supports the lesson's recurrence and reach, and which missing answer would materially change that judgment enough to require clarification?
• Which classification best fits the record: reasonable collaboration, an activation or execution gap, missing project context, a stable working preference, no durable lesson, or another supported explanation?

Scope And Destination Questions

• Is the durable content an agent reasoning or workflow rule, project-specific knowledge or process, a user working preference, or separate lessons of more than one kind?
• What reach does the record support: one project, a recurring task family, cross-project work for this user, or another explicit boundary?
• Which existing guidance source owns that kind of content and reach, or what distinct responsibility would justify a new source?
• If reusable agent guidance does not fit an existing task family, does the lesson establish a distinct recurring family with its own activation boundary, information sources, judgments, and validation responsibility that justifies a new skill?
• Would the selected destination duplicate, contradict, or overload an existing source of truth rather than improve it?

Guidance Requirement Questions

• What portable behavior should the selected guidance require or preserve?
• Under what conditions should that behavior apply, and what evidence limits its scope?
• What representative success or failure situation must the guidance help a future agent recognize and handle differently?
• Which private, incidental, or interaction-specific details explain this record but do not belong in durable guidance?

If no durable lesson or owning source is justified, leave durable guidance unchanged.

Decision Validation Questions

• Does the proposed lesson explain the original interaction and the observed improvement or failure?
• Would it guide supported analogous situations without changing unrelated behavior that the record does not cover?
• Does the selected scope and destination match the content they are responsible for owning?
• What validation was actually performed, and which conclusions remain static inferences or recommendations?

Result Questions

Lead with whether a durable lesson exists, including no change, then state its portable behavior, supported scope, and owning guidance source.

• What interaction evidence most strongly supports the decision?
• What guidance requirements follow from that evidence?
• What guidance change follows from the decision, and was it requested, recommended, or already applied?
• What was validated, and what uncertainty still materially affects persistence?