Run a work retrospective that leads to specific actions

When to use this prompt

Use this after a delivery, experiment, or project milestone. Remove personal, customer, and confidential information before sending real work notes to an AI service.

Copyable prompt

Help me review the work below without turning assumptions into facts or assigning blame without evidence.

1. Restate the intended outcome, planned date, actual result, and available evidence.
2. Build a short timeline. Label missing or disputed details instead of filling them in.
3. Separate observed events from explanations. For each possible cause, state what evidence supports it and what would challenge it.
4. Identify what to keep, what to change, and what needs further checking.
5. Propose no more than three follow-up actions. Each needs a clear owner or proposed role, deadline, completion criterion, and a date to review the result. Do not invent an agreement or claim that someone has accepted an action.
6. End with the decisions a person must confirm.
   Goal: [intended result]
   Planned and actual dates: [dates]
   Timeline and evidence: [notes, records, or source text]
   Constraints: [staff, scope, time, or dependencies]

Example input

The following is a fictional teaching example, not a real customer project or a completed model evaluation.

A team planned to hand over a draft on Wednesday and delivered it on Friday. Monday's kickoff assigned a writer and reviewer but did not define acceptance criteria. On Tuesday the writer requested those criteria. The reviewer supplied them on Wednesday afternoon. A revised draft was ready Thursday and approved Friday. The notes do not record reviewer workload or any agreement on response time.

Example output

Outcome: the handoff occurred two days after the planned Wednesday date.

Timeline: Monday—roles assigned, acceptance criteria absent; Tuesday—writer requested criteria; Wednesday afternoon—criteria supplied; Thursday—revised draft ready; Friday—approval and handoff.

Observed problem: acceptance criteria were supplied after drafting had begun. Possible explanation: the kickoff did not establish what "ready for review" meant. The record does not establish whether reviewer workload, scope changes, or other constraints also caused delay.

Keep: the writer raised the missing criteria and the team recorded the handoff dates.

Proposed actions, subject to team agreement:

1. Project lead: add acceptance criteria to the next kickoff brief before the next project starts. Complete when the writer and reviewer confirm the same checklist.

2. Reviewer: agree a review slot before drafting starts. Complete when a named reviewer and a feasible response window are recorded; review the next handoff to see whether that window was met.

3. Writer: flag missing criteria at the first check-in rather than waiting for a complete draft. Complete when unresolved items appear in the shared issue list with a decision owner.

Review point: after the next two handoffs, compare planned and actual dates and check which assumptions held. This is a proposal, not a claim that the process already improved.

Human review

Confirm the timeline against source records, ask the team whether the proposed owners and dates are feasible, and check alternative explanations before concluding why the delay happened. Avoid turning a two-day delay into an unsupported judgment about a colleague's motivation.

For related planning methods, read AI Prompts for Project Management.