retrospect

Capture session lessons by analyzing the completed work to extract durable insights, then append structured entries with IDs, tags, context, and application guidance into the project knowledge registry. This records non-obvious outcomes from bug fixes or architectural decisions for future reuse.

The best way to document engineering notes is to classify the durable insights as patterns, pitfalls, or architecture decisions. Generate structured, category-tagged entries with concrete application guidance and falsifiable impact metrics, then write them to the registry.

Yes, you can record architectural decisions and performance findings by extracting these durable insights from the session. The process classifies them and appends structured entries with sequential IDs and context to the project knowledge registry for future sessions.

Session review extracts knowledge by examining what was accomplished, what worked, what failed, and why. It identifies durable insights from rework or non-obvious outcomes, then writes them as structured entries with falsifiable impact metrics to the registry.

No external dependencies are required to write lessons learned to the knowledge registry. The process operates independently to analyze the session, extract insights, and append structured entries directly to the project registry file.

You should not use a retrospective for obvious or routine changes that lack non-obvious outcomes. It is designed for post-session reviews after complex bug fixes, architectural decisions, or rework where durable insights and measurable impacts need to be captured.