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

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:

**

Context

**

{when this applies}

**

Learning

**

{what we learned}

**

Action

**

{what to do differently}

Updates to Process

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