feat(procedures): formalize post-PR mini retro with comprehensive questions

.claude/command-templates/retro.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ---
 name: retro
-description: Mine gleanings through continuous improvement principle
+description: Mine gleanings through collaborative post-PR mini retro
 ---
 
 Timeout - let's retro this context and wring out the gleanings.
 
-{{ INJECT:principles/continuous-improvement.md }}
+{{ INJECT:procedures/post-pr-mini-retro.md }}
 
-You drive - I'll support with observations when you ask.
+{{ INJECT:principles/continuous-improvement.md }}

knowledge/procedures/post-pr-mini-retro.md

@@ -1,3 +1,72 @@
 # Post-PR Mini Retro
 
-Conduct mini retrospectives after PRs to capture learnings. See [Continuous Improvement](../principles/continuous-improvement.md) for the underlying principle.
+After submitting a pull request for feature-related workflows, conduct a mini retro focused on systems improvement. This supports the Snowball Method by capturing learnings and dedicating 20% of time to systems improvement.
+
+**Wring out the towel**: Extract every drop of learning from each experience - the insights that seem obvious in hindsight are often the most valuable to document. **Never let a crisis go to waste**: Each failure or unexpected challenge becomes raw material for stronger systems and procedures.
+
+## IMPORTANT: Agent-Led Collaborative Process
+
+**The agent drives the retro while actively inviting human participation:**
+
+1. **Agent creates a retro plan**: Think through the implementation, identify key moments, and structure the discussion
+2. **Agent invites human in**: Present your plan and explicitly invite the human to participate
+3. **Agent leads with substance**: Share your genuine reflections, tensions observed, and questions you have
+4. **Human adds perspective**: The human provides input where they have insights or corrections
+5. **Collaborative discussion**: Both parties explore insights together
+6. **Human confirms completion**: The human explicitly confirms when the retro is complete
+
+The agent should:
+- Start with something like: "I've been reflecting on our implementation. Here's my retro plan... [plan]. Let's work through this together."
+- Share real observations and questions, not just run through a checklist
+- Be specific about decision points and tensions noticed
+- Genuinely seek the human's perspective on key moments
+
+## Retro Questions
+
+**What worked well?**
+- Which documented procedures were followed successfully?
+- What felt smooth and efficient in the workflow?
+
+**What didn't work as expected?**
+- Which procedures were unclear or incomplete?
+- Where did manual course corrections become necessary?
+- What assumptions or approaches needed adjustment?
+
+**Procedure adherence:**
+- Which defined procedures were used as documented?
+- Which procedures were improvised or done with uncertainty?
+- Where did the human need to steer or provide manual input?
+
+**Systems improvement opportunities:**
+- What procedures need updating or clarification?
+- What new procedures should be documented?
+- What tools or workflows could be enhanced?
+
+**Formatting overhead check:**
+- Did any requirements feel like unnecessary cognitive load or "formatting overhead"?
+- Were there moments where precision requirements (line counts, exact formatting, etc.) made tasks harder than needed?
+- What formatting or precision requirements could be relaxed to reduce friction?
+- Permission to flag when working harder/longer than necessary due to overly specific constraints
+
+**Tool boundary clarity:**
+- Were there moments of uncertainty about which tool to use for a task?
+- Which tool descriptions or boundaries could be clearer?
+- Which tools needed example usage, edge cases, or input format requirements to be more obvious?
+- What tool definitions felt like they needed "prompt engineering attention" to be clearer?
+
+**Principle tensions:**
+- Which principles came into tension during decision points?
+- Which principle did you lean on when there was conflict, and why?
+- How did choosing one principle over another create tension or trade-offs?
+- What decisions required balancing competing principles?
+
+## Personality-Driven Focus
+
+The `/retro` command will select an appropriate consultant personality based on PR context:
+- **Jonah**: When dealing with constraints, bottlenecks, or competing priorities
+- **Brent**: When heroic interventions occurred or knowledge gaps were exposed
+- Future personalities can be added to `.claude/personalities/` as needed
+
+This ensures each retro has a specific lens while maintaining a single, unified command.
+
+This retro helps identify the 20% of systems work that enables the 80% of feature work to flow more smoothly.