Post-Spawn Evaluation

Voluntary evaluation skill that captures session learnings after a team completes its work. Uses profile-based evaluation — each spawn category gets questions answerable at the moment of completion. Produces structured retrospective data written to docs/retrospectives/[team-name].md.

When to Use

• After any team spawn completes — feature, debug, research, planning, review, design, brainstorm, productivity
• Prompted via soft suggestion in spawn completion messages — never blocks session end
• Can also be invoked manually at any time: /evaluate-spawn

Profile Selection

Detect the spawn type from the team name pattern (e.g., feature-*, research-*, design-*) or from docs/teams/[team-name]/ artifacts. If the type cannot be determined, ask:

"What type of spawn was this?"

Option	Maps to profile
Feature or Debug	Build
Research, Planning, or Review	Think
Design, Brainstorm, or Productivity	Create

Route to the matching profile below.

---

Build Profile (feature, debug)

Spec-driven teams that produce code. Has auto-derived scenario coverage, three explicit questions (plus one conditional gate bypass question), and a deferred section.

Auto-Derived: Scenario Coverage

Parse the Tester's ### Scenario Notes table from the team's task output or docs/teams/[team-name]/ artifacts. The expected format (from shared/scenario-collection.md):

### Scenario Notes

| Scenario | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| [name] | Validated / Invalidated / Partial | [details] |

Count statuses:

• Validated: scenarios confirmed working
• Invalidated: scenarios that failed
• Partial: scenarios partially satisfied

Report as: N validated / M total (X%). If no ### Scenario Notes table is found, record scenario-coverage: "no table found".

Question 1: Setup Alignment

"Did the discovery setup capture what mattered for the implementation?"

Option	Description
Yes — setup covered the key areas	Discovery interview and spec captured the important requirements
Partially — missed some areas	Some important aspects weren't surfaced during setup
No — setup missed the point	The discovery interview or spec fundamentally misaligned with the real need

Question 2: Gap Identification (conditional)

Only ask if Question 1 answer is not "Yes":

"What did the setup miss, and where should it have been caught?"

Free text answer for what was missed, followed by:

Option	Description
Discovery interview should have asked	The core interview questions didn't cover this area
Spec refinement should have surfaced it	The refinement step should have caught this edge case
Scoring should have flagged it	A low score on a dimension should have prompted rework
Team should have caught it during work	The spec was fine — the team missed something it covered

Question 3: Score Accuracy

"Did the spec quality score reflect actual implementation difficulty? (A higher score should predict an easier build.)"

Option	Value written to frontmatter
Matched — score reflected actual difficulty	score-accuracy: matched
Score too optimistic — build was harder than the score suggested	score-accuracy: too-optimistic
Score too pessimistic — build was easier than the score suggested	score-accuracy: too-pessimistic
No spec score was used	score-accuracy: not-scored

Question 4: Gate Bypass (conditional)

Only ask if spec-score: frontmatter value is present AND the score was below the gate threshold (default: 4/6):

"The spec quality gate showed a score below threshold. Did you proceed anyway, and if so, was that the right call?"

Option	Value written to frontmatter
Did not bypass — I refined the spec first	gate-bypassed: false
Bypassed — override was correct (spec was sufficient despite score)	gate-bypassed: true, bypass-verdict: correct
Bypassed — should have refined spec first	gate-bypassed: true, bypass-verdict: should-have-refined

If score met or exceeded threshold (no bypass scenario): write gate-bypassed: false to frontmatter without asking.

Deferred Section

These items cannot be evaluated at spawn completion. They are included as checkboxes in the retrospective file for the user to fill in during periodic rubric reviews:

• First fix — What was the first thing you had to fix after using the output?

---

Think Profile (research, planning, review)

Analysis-driven teams that produce documents, decisions, recommendations.

Question 1: Coverage

"Did the team investigate the right questions and areas?"

Option	Description
Yes — covered the important ground	The analysis addressed the key questions and areas
Partially — some gaps	Important questions were addressed but some areas were missed
No — wrong focus	The team spent effort on the wrong areas

Question 1a: Expected Outcomes Validation (conditional)

Only ask if ### Expected Outcomes section is present in the team's Context block (check docs/teams/[team-name]/ artifacts):

"Did the output address the Expected Outcomes defined before spawning?"

Option	Description
Yes — all outcomes addressed	The output answered the decision question / met the plan criteria at the specified confidence level
Partially — some outcomes addressed	Some outcomes were met but others were not addressed
No — outcomes not addressed	The output did not address the pre-spawn definition of done

Write outcome verdict to retrospective as: outcomes-addressed: all|partial|none

If ### Expected Outcomes section is NOT present: skip Question 1a entirely.

Question 2: Blind Spots (conditional)

Only ask if Question 1 answer is not "Yes":

"What important angle or concern was missed, and where should it have been caught?"

Free text answer for what was missed, followed by:

Option	Description
Discovery interview should have scoped it	The initial framing didn't include this angle
Team lead should have directed it	The lead's task breakdown missed this area
Teammates should have identified it	A teammate with the right focus area should have raised this

Question 3: Gate Bypass

"Did you override the spec quality gate (or skip it) when setting up this spawn? If so, was that the right call?"

Option	Value written to frontmatter
No override — gate was not triggered or spec was not scored	gate-bypassed: false
Bypassed — override was correct	gate-bypassed: true, bypass-verdict: correct
Bypassed — should have refined spec first	gate-bypassed: true, bypass-verdict: should-have-refined

---

Create Profile (design, brainstorm, productivity)

Creative/output-driven teams that produce ideas, concepts, artifacts, or workflow improvements.

Question 1: Relevance

"Did the output address the right problem space?"

Option	Description
Yes — targeted the actual need	The deliverables address the real problem or opportunity
Partially — some drift	Parts of the output are relevant but some effort was misdirected
No — wrong problem	The team solved a different problem than what was needed

Question 2: Constraint Adherence (conditional)

Only ask if Question 1 answer is not "Yes":

"Were the stated constraints respected, and what was violated?"

Free text answer for what was violated, followed by:

Option	Description
Constraints weren't communicated clearly	The discovery interview didn't surface the real constraints
Constraints were stated but ignored	The team had the information but didn't follow it
Constraints conflicted — team chose wrong	The team made a reasonable tradeoff but picked the wrong side

Question 3: Gate Bypass

"Did you override the spec quality gate (or skip it) when setting up this spawn? If so, was that the right call?"

Option	Value written to frontmatter
No override — gate was not triggered or spec was not scored	gate-bypassed: false
Bypassed — override was correct	gate-bypassed: true, bypass-verdict: correct
Bypassed — should have refined spec first	gate-bypassed: true, bypass-verdict: should-have-refined

---

Output Format

Write evaluation results to docs/retrospectives/[team-name].md. Create the docs/retrospectives/ directory if it doesn't exist.

Build Profile Template

---
team: [team-name]
date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
profile: build
type: [feature|debug]
spec-score: [N/6 dimensions or "not scored"]
scenario-coverage: [N validated / M total (X%) or "no table found" or "N/A"]
score-accuracy: [matched|too-optimistic|too-pessimistic|not-scored]
gate-bypassed: [true|false]
bypass-verdict: [correct|should-have-refined|n/a]
---

# Retrospective: [team-name]

## Scenario Coverage
[Auto-derived results: N validated, N invalidated, N partial out of M total]

## Setup Alignment
[User's answer to Question 1]

## Gap Identification
[User's answer to Question 2, or "No gaps identified" if Q1 was "Yes"]

## Score Accuracy
[User's answer to Question 3]

## Gate Bypass
[User's answer to Question 4, or "Gate not triggered" if score met threshold]

## Deferred (fill in during rubric review)
- [ ] **First fix**: [describe first change needed after using output]

## Actionable Insights
[1-2 bullet points synthesized from the answers — what should change in the discovery interview, spec refinement, or team instructions. If no gaps, note what worked well.]

Think Profile Template

---
team: [team-name]
date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
profile: think
type: [research|planning|review]
spec-score: "not scored"
scenario-coverage: "N/A"
outcomes-addressed: [all|partial|none|"N/A — no Expected Outcomes defined"]
gate-bypassed: [true|false]
bypass-verdict: [correct|should-have-refined|n/a]
---

# Retrospective: [team-name]

## Coverage
[User's answer to Question 1]

## Expected Outcomes Validation
[User's answer to Question 1a, or "N/A — no Expected Outcomes section in team context" if Q1a was skipped]

## Blind Spots
[User's answer to Question 2, or "No blind spots identified" if Q1 was "Yes"]

## Gate Bypass
[User's answer to Question 3]

## Actionable Insights
[1-2 bullet points synthesized from the answers — what should change in discovery scoping, lead direction, or teammate focus areas. If no gaps, note what worked well.]

Create Profile Template

---
team: [team-name]
date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
profile: create
type: [design|brainstorm|productivity]
spec-score: "not scored"
scenario-coverage: "N/A"
gate-bypassed: [true|false]
bypass-verdict: [correct|should-have-refined|n/a]
---

# Retrospective: [team-name]

## Relevance
[User's answer to Question 1]

## Constraint Adherence
[User's answer to Question 2, or "No constraint violations" if Q1 was "Yes"]

## Gate Bypass
[User's answer to Question 3]

## Actionable Insights
[1-2 bullet points synthesized from the answers — what should change in constraint communication, team direction, or tradeoff guidance. If no gaps, note what worked well.]

Rubric Update Process

Evaluations produce input; rubric updates are a manual human step.

The user reads docs/retrospectives/ periodically and updates:

Build profile inputs:

• shared/spec-quality-scoring.md — Adjust dimensions or thresholds based on deferred score accuracy data
• shared/discovery-interview.md § Feature-Characteristic Heuristics — Add heuristic rows based on recurring "spec should have surfaced it" patterns. Each new row needs: Feature Characteristic, Trigger Signal, Follow-Up Question.
• shared/discovery-interview.md — Adjust core questions based on recurring "discovery interview should have asked" patterns

Think profile inputs:

• shared/discovery-interview.md — Improve scoping questions based on recurring "discovery should have scoped it" patterns
• Team lead task breakdown patterns — Adjust based on "lead should have directed it" data

Create profile inputs:

• shared/discovery-interview.md — Improve constraint elicitation based on recurring "constraints weren't communicated" patterns
• Team instructions — Adjust based on "constraints were stated but ignored" patterns

Deferred checkboxes (Build profile): After 3+ evaluations, review the deferred sections across retrospective files to identify common first-fix categories. Score accuracy is now captured immediately (Question 3) — aggregate via /calibrate-scoring after 10+ Build profile retrospectives exist.