pr-retro

SKILL.md

PR Retro Skill

Learn from PR outcomes by analyzing accept/reject patterns.

Overview

After a PR is merged or rejected, analyze what worked and what didn't to
improve future contributions.

Output: .agents/learnings/YYYY-MM-DD-pr-{repo}-{outcome}.md

When to Use:

After a PR is merged (capture success patterns)

After a PR is rejected (understand why)

After receiving significant review feedback

Periodically to review contribution patterns

Workflow
1.  PR Discovery    -> Find the PR to analyze
2.  Outcome Analysis -> Merged/rejected/changes requested
3.  Feedback Extraction -> What did reviewers say?
4.  Pattern Identification -> What worked/didn't
5.  Lesson Extraction -> Reusable learnings
6.  Output -> Write retro document

Phase 1: PR Discovery

# If PR number provided
gh pr view <number> --json state,reviews,comments,mergedAt,closedAt

# Find recent PRs by you
gh pr list --state all --author @me --limit 10

# Find PRs to a specific repo
gh pr list -R <owner/repo> --state all --author @me --limit 10

Phase 2: Outcome Analysis

Outcome
Meaning
Focus

Merged
Success
What worked?

Closed (not merged)
Rejected
Why?

Open (stale)
Ignored/abandoned
What went wrong?

Changes requested
Needs work
What feedback?

# Get PR outcome
gh pr view <number> --json state,mergedAt,closedAt,reviews

Phase 3: Feedback Extraction

# Get all review comments
gh pr view <number> --json reviews --jq '.reviews[] | "\(.author.login): \(.body)"'

# Get all comments
gh api repos/<owner>/<repo>/pulls/<number>/comments --jq '.[].body'

# Get requested changes
gh pr view <number> --json reviews --jq '.reviews[] | select(.state == "CHANGES_REQUESTED")'

Feedback Categories

Category
Examples

Style
Naming, formatting, conventions

Technical
Algorithm, architecture, patterns

Scope
Too big, scope creep, unrelated changes

Testing
Missing tests, coverage, edge cases

Documentation
Missing docs, unclear comments

Process
Wrong branch, missing sign-off

Phase 4: Pattern Identification

Success Patterns (If Merged)

What Worked
Evidence

Small, focused PR
< 5 files

Followed conventions
No style comments

Good tests
No "add tests" requests

Clear description
Quick approval

Failure Patterns (If Rejected)

What Failed
Evidence

Too large
"Please split this PR"

Scope creep
"This is out of scope"

Missing tests
"Please add tests"

Wrong approach
"Consider using X instead"

Phase 5: Lesson Extraction

Lesson Template

## Lesson: [Title]

**Context**: [When does this apply?]
**Learning**: [What did we learn?]
**Action**: [What to do differently?]

**Evidence**:
- PR #N: [quote or summary]

Common Lessons

Lesson
Action

PR too large
Split PRs under 200 lines

Missing context
Add "## Context" section

Style mismatch
Run linter before PR

Missing tests
Add tests for new code

Slow review
Ping after 1 week

Phase 6: Output

Write to .agents/learnings/YYYY-MM-DD-pr-{repo}-{outcome}.md

# PR Retro: {repo} #{number}

**Date**: YYYY-MM-DD
**PR**: {url}
**Outcome**: Merged / Rejected / Stale

## Summary

{What was the PR about? What happened?}

## Timeline

| Date | Event |
|------|-------|
| {date} | PR opened |
| {date} | First review |
| {date} | {outcome} |

## Feedback Analysis

### Positive Feedback
- {quote}

### Requested Changes
- {quote}

### Rejection Reasons (if applicable)
- {quote}

## Lessons Learned

### Lesson 1: {title}
**Context**: {when this applies}
**Learning**: {what we learned}
**Action**: {what to do differently}

## Updates to Process

{Any changes to make to pr-prep, pr-plan, or other skills}

## Next Steps

{Future actions based on this retro}

Anti-Patterns

DON'T
DO INSTEAD

Skip retros on merged PRs
Learn from success too

Blame maintainers
Focus on what YOU can change

Generic lessons
Specific, actionable learnings

Skip rejected PRs
Most valuable learning source

Examples

Learn From Rejected PR

User says: "Run a retro on why this PR was rejected."

What happens:

Analyze reviewer feedback and timeline.

Identify preventable process and scope issues.

Capture reusable lessons for future PRs.

Learn From Successful Merge

User says: "Extract what worked from this merged PR."

What happens:

Identify patterns that sped review/approval.

Distill actionable playbook updates.

Save lessons for future contribution flows.

Troubleshooting

Problem
Cause
Solution

Retro is generic
Feedback not tied to evidence
Cite specific comments/decisions and outcomes

No clear lesson extracted
Analysis stayed descriptive
Convert observations into behavior changes

Maintainer signal is mixed
Contradictory review comments
Separate hard blockers from preference feedback

Process changes not adopted
Lessons not operationalized
Add explicit updates to prep/plan/validate workflow