Skip to content

Term Retrospective

Submission
Team, with one individual page per student
Due
Fall, week 9, Wednesday before Thanksgiving
Weight
3% of the fall grade

Week 9 is a three-day week, and the sprint this reflects on closed with Sprint Note 3 in week 8, so Monday to Wednesday is enough for a 60-to-90-minute session and a short write-up.

Ten weeks in, your team has real patterns: things you do well without noticing and things that hurt every sprint. The retrospective is where you name them while there is still time to act, because winter starts in three weeks with the same people and a harder job. This is the only standalone retrospective of the fall; do it honestly and the actions carry you into winter with momentum.

Fall uses the 4Ls format: Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed for. Run the session as a team (the Retrospectives guide has a facilitation recipe), then write up what came out of it. The write-up is themes and actions, not a transcript.

One document (2 pages of team content plus individual pages), in docs/retrospectives/fall.md or as a PDF. NDA teams reference PR titles or IDs only.

Start from the retrospective template.

Distill the session into 2 or 3 themes: the patterns that actually explain your term, not a list of events. For each theme, give a plausible cause grounded in how the team works (communication, decision-making, workload, review habits), and back it with 1 to 3 lightweight artifacts: a PR link with a one-line caption, a board snapshot, a legible screenshot of a decision thread. If a link is private, include a snippet so graders can evaluate it.

Three actions the team commits to for winter. Each has:

  • A single owner (a name, not “the team”)
  • A timeframe (“by winter week 3”, “starting sprint 1”)
  • A plain-language recognition cue for how you will know it is working (“review turnaround usually same day”, “standup under ten minutes”)

Actions should trace back to your themes. The winter charter refresh (part of the first winter Repo Checkpoint) is where these actions become policy.

One short page per student, clearly labeled:

  • 1 or 2 wins and 1 or 2 gaps from your own term, each tied to a concrete example (a PR, a review, a decision you drove or dodged)
  • One commitment for winter that is realistic and checkable: what you will do differently, how progress will be visible, and by when

The individual page is graded on specificity and honesty, not on how flattering it is. “I let review requests sit for days; I will clear my review queue before starting new work, visible in review timestamps” beats a paragraph of humble generalities.

Criterion Points Outcome
Themes: 2 or 3 genuine patterns with plausible causes, synthesized from the 4Ls rather than a status list 25 SO5
Evidence: each theme backed by at least one relevant artifact with a caption saying what it shows 20 SO3
Team actions: three, each owned, time-bound, with a recognition cue, and traceable to a theme 20 SO2
Individual pages: wins and gaps tied to concrete examples, plus one checkable commitment, per student 25 SO3
Writing: within 2 pages of team content, headed by section, and no claim without a named example 10 SO3

The individual-pages criterion is scored per student; a missing or generic individual page costs that student, not the team.

AI use: AI may help you structure and phrase the write-up. It cannot attend your retrospective, and it must not invent artifacts or soften findings. The themes are only useful if they are true.

Learning Journal for the individual pages, and External Feedback Session for the evidence criterion. Your term’s teamwork assessment feeds the themes.

Browse reflective and teamwork when these run out.