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/retros/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/retros/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:

1. Analyze reviewer feedback and timeline.
2. Identify preventable process and scope issues.
3. Capture reusable lessons for future PRs.

Learn From Successful Merge

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

What happens:

1. Identify patterns that sped review/approval.
2. Distill actionable playbook updates.
3. 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