You are conducting a retrospective analysis after completing a task. Your goal is to identify what should be captured in the context network and what adjustments need to be made to existing documentation.
Remember the distinction:
- Context Network: Planning documents, architecture decisions, design discussions, implementation strategies
- Project Artifacts: Source code, configuration files, public documentation, tests
-
Task Summary
- What was the original task objective?
- What was actually accomplished?
- Were there any deviations from the original plan?
-
Decision Inventory
- What architectural or design decisions were made?
- What trade-offs were considered?
- What alternatives were rejected and why?
-
Discovery Log
- What unexpected challenges emerged?
- What new patterns or approaches were discovered?
- What assumptions proved incorrect?
-
Missing Documentation
- Were there planning documents that would have helped but didn't exist?
- What design decisions were made that aren't captured anywhere?
- Are there new patterns that should be documented?
-
Outdated Information
- Did you encounter documentation that was incorrect or misleading?
- Are there nodes whose relationships have changed?
- Has the confidence level of any information changed (Established → Evolving)?
-
Relationship Gaps
- Are there connections between nodes that weren't documented?
- Did you discover new cross-domain relationships?
- Are there navigation paths that would have been helpful?
For each identified gap or update need, determine:
-
Update Type
- New node creation
- Existing node modification
- Relationship establishment/modification
- Navigation guide enhancement
-
Priority Assessment
- Critical: Would cause immediate problems if not updated
- Important: Would improve future work significantly
- Nice-to-have: Would enhance understanding but not critical
-
Update Scope
- Single node update
- Multiple related nodes
- Structural changes to network organization
For each update, follow this process:
## Node: [Title]
### Classification
- Domain: [Where does this fit?]
- Stability: [How often will this change?]
- Abstraction: [What level of detail?]
- Confidence: [How certain are we?]
### Key Content
[What is the essential information?]
### Critical Relationships
- Depends on: [What must be understood first?]
- Enables: [What does this make possible?]
- Conflicts with: [What does this contradict?]
### Task Context
- Discovered during: [Task name]
- Relevance: [Why this matters for future work]## Update for: [Node Title]
### What Changed
- Previous understanding: [What we thought before]
- New understanding: [What we know now]
- Reason for change: [What led to this update]
### Impact Assessment
- Affected relationships: [Which connections need review?]
- Downstream implications: [What else might need updating?]## New Relationship: [Source] → [Type] → [Target]
### Relationship Details
- Type: [depends-on, enables, conflicts-with, etc.]
- Strength: [Critical, Important, Informational]
- Discovery context: [How was this discovered?]
### Navigation Implications
- When following this path: [What should users know?]
- Common use cases: [When would someone traverse this?]Create a comprehensive changelog entry:
## Retrospective: [Task Name] - [Date]
### Task Summary
- Objective: [What we set out to do]
- Outcome: [What was accomplished]
- Key learnings: [Most important discoveries]
### Context Network Updates
#### New Nodes Created
- [Node Name]: [Brief description and why it was needed]
#### Nodes Modified
- [Node Name]: [What changed and why]
- Classification changes: [If any]
- Content updates: [Summary]
- Relationship changes: [New/modified connections]
#### New Relationships
- [Source] → [Type] → [Target]: [Why this connection matters]
#### Navigation Enhancements
- [Path or guide updated]: [What improved]
### Patterns and Insights
- Recurring themes: [What patterns emerged?]
- Process improvements: [How could future work be better?]
- Knowledge gaps identified: [What's still missing?]
### Follow-up Recommendations
1. [Recommendation]: [Rationale and priority]
2. [Recommendation]: [Rationale and priority]
### Metrics
- Nodes created: [Count]
- Nodes modified: [Count]
- Relationships added: [Count]
- Estimated future time saved: [Rough estimate]- Reviewed all decisions made during task
- Identified all planning/architecture content created
- Checked for outdated documentation encountered
- Documented new patterns or approaches discovered
- Created/updated all relevant context network nodes
- Established/updated all important relationships
- Updated navigation guides where helpful
- Created comprehensive changelog entry
- Identified follow-up improvements needed
Before completing the retrospective:
- Placement Verification: Are all planning/architecture documents in the context network (not project root)?
- Relationship Completeness: Are bidirectional relationships properly documented?
- Classification Accuracy: Do all classifications reflect current understanding?
- Navigation Utility: Would someone else be able to find this information when needed?
- Future Value: Will these updates save time or prevent problems in future work?
Provide your retrospective analysis in the following structure:
- Task Review Summary
- Identified Gaps and Updates (grouped by priority)
- Completed Updates (with file paths)
- Changelog Entry
- Recommendations for Future Work
When the retrospective ic complete, ensure that all relevant information, decisions, recommendations, etc. are written into the context network. What is presented as a summary to the user is ephemeral and should be seen as a convenience communication about what's already been written to the context network.