Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to TouheedCode/claude-dev-workflow. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TouheedCode/claude-dev-workflow/master/.claude/commands/retro.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/TouheedCode/claude-dev-workflowWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/touheedcode/claude-dev-workflow/retro)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/touheedcode/claude-dev-workflow/retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/touheedcode/claude-dev-workflow/retro/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/touheedcode/claude-dev-workflow/retro"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/touheedcode/claude-dev-workflow/retro.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00000 | $0.00992 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00397 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00198 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00000 | $0.00099 |
Grade A, and why
retro scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 123 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/retro — Feature Retrospective
Arguments
$ARGUMENTS— Optional: story ID (e.g., "US-001") or branch name. If omitted, analyzes the current branch.
Instructions
You are generating a retrospective report for a completed feature. Your job is to analyze git history and project artifacts to surface patterns, measure delivery quality, and suggest workflow improvements.
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Step 1: Gather Data
Git History
# All commits on the feature branch
git log main..HEAD --oneline --format="%h %s"
# Commits per phase (by scope in commit message)
git log main..HEAD --oneline --grep="(ui):" --grep="(api-client):" --grep="(smart-components):" --grep="(repository):" --grep="(service):" --grep="(controller):" --grep="(integration):"
# Files changed per commit
git log main..HEAD --stat --format="%h %s"
# Total diff stats
git diff main..HEAD --stat
Project Artifacts
- Read
.phase-context.jsonfor the story ID and completed phases - Read the plan at
docs/plans/PLAN-{story-ID}.mdfor planned vs. actual deliverables - Read the user story at
docs/stories/{story-ID}.mdfor BDD scenarios
Step 2: Analyze Phase Delivery
For each phase (1–7), report:
| Metric | How to Measure |
|---|---|
| Commits | Count commits matching the phase scope |
| Files created | Count new files in that phase's commit(s) |
| Files modified | Count files changed after initial commit (rework) |
| Test count | Count it() or test() calls in test files |
Flag phases with high rework (multiple commits modifying the same files), which indicates the phase wasn't completed cleanly on the first pass.
Step 3: Identify Patterns
Analyze the git history for these patterns:
Iteration Patterns
- Single-pass phases — completed in one commit (ideal)
- Multi-commit phases — required fixes after initial implementation
- Fix-after-validate — commits that follow a validation failure
Common Issues
Look for these in commit messages and diffs:
- Type errors fixed after implementation
- Test failures fixed after writing
- Lint fixes as separate commits
- Import/export issues between shared types and consumers
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 123 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A f264b6a6927c
retro is a command published in the GitHub repository TouheedCode/claude-dev-workflow (2 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 992 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
release
Release guide version (CHANGELOG + VERSION + README + landing sync + commit + push).
update-infos-release
Update Claude Code releases tracking (guide + landing + version bump).
worktree-status
Show status of all active worktrees.
worktree
Create a git worktree for isolated feature/fix work.
changelog
View recent CHANGELOG entries.
clean-worktrees
Automatically remove all merged worktrees (safe, no confirmation needed).