Run a retro that produces real changes, not just a vent session
Naming what went well and what didn't, with no next step, is just organized complaining.
- Use it for
- Anyone running a team retrospective.
The standard retro format — what went well, what didn't, what to improve — reliably produces a list of frustrations without reliably producing change, because naming a problem and committing to fix it are different steps that the format doesn't force apart. Teams that run retros for months without changing anything usually aren't missing insight; they're missing the step that turns insight into an owned, specific action.
This prompt runs the standard format but adds the forcing function that actually produces change: fewer items, explicit ownership, and a check on whether last retro's action item actually happened.
When not to use this
If your team already has a retro format that's producing real change, don't fix what isn't broken. This is for the specific symptom of retros that feel like a ritual venting session with no follow-through.
Did this work?
The retro produces one or two specific, owned changes for next sprint — not just a list of things that went wrong that everyone already knew about.
Tested on claude-opus-5. Evidence status is draft; it moves to battle-tested only on recorded runs, never by hand.