Status: Retrospective Type: Retrospective Author: Your Model (e.g. Codex GPT-5) Created: YYYY-MM-DD

Summary

• What shipped or changed.
• What the operator/user experienced.
• The main lesson in one or two sentences.

Scope

• Code paths, tests, fixtures, docs, and commits reviewed.
• What this retrospective does not attempt to redesign.

Outcome

• Current state after the workstream.
• Decisions that are now policy.
• Compatibility commitments that remain.

Code Review Findings

List findings in priority order. Each finding should name a concrete file, behavior, or test target, then state whether it is fixed, must be fixed before landing, or is accepted as a documented trade-off.

Fragility and Refactoring Opportunities

• Shortcuts, hacks, or vestigial paths that could cause future bugs.
• State or lifetime protocols that comments describe but types do not enforce.
• Refactors that would make invalid states unrepresentable: RAII leases, ownership changes, closed state machines, typed result variants, shared test harnesses, or deleted configuration paths.

Testing Review

• Which red tests existed before fixes.
• Which tests failed to represent the bug and why.
• Which test infrastructure gaps remain.

Process Review

• Where debugging discipline held.
• Where the team iterated without a representative repro.
• Whether the stack preserves repo hygiene: commit shape, dead-code deletion, readability-driven tests, and reviewer-visible artifacts.

Actions

Use a checklist for follow-ups that should outlive the retrospective.

• Action item with the enforcing test target or review gate.