Personal / Team Weekly Review
Assemble a reflective weekly review that pulls the week's done-list, metrics, and open loops into a structured retrospective with wins, misses, lessons, and next-week priorities. Scopes the review template and the inputs FIRST (the GTD-style sections, what data feeds each, the carry-over rule for unfinished items), then a copywriter writes the honest, concise review against that template. The scope-first ordering keeps the review consistent week over week and ensures open loops are carried forward rather than forgotten. Use for weekly reviews, personal retrospectives, GTD weekly review, end-of-week wrap-ups, and team retros.
Steps
Entry step: scope. Each step names the specialist role it wants; the full working prompt is expandable.
- Scope the reviewplannerentry
lock the template, inputs, and carry-over rule
Show working prompt
Define the review structure before writing. (1) Lock the section template — This week's wins / Misses & what slipped / Metrics & progress / Lessons learned / Open loops carried forward / Next week's top 3 priorities. (2) Name the inputs feeding each section (completed tasks, the prior review's priorities, tracked metrics, notes/journal). (3) Lock the carry-over rule: every item that was a priority last week and is still open MUST appear in Open loops and be explicitly resolved or re-prioritized — nothing silently dropped. (4) Set tone (honest, concise, first-person or team) and the reporting week. Write an acceptance-criteria checklist ('every template section present', 'wins and misses both populated honestly', 'last week\'s open priorities each accounted for', 'next week is exactly three concrete priorities', 'grounded in real inputs, not generic') plus the template + input map to notes/scope.md via write_task_note AND the produces path. - Assemble the reviewcopywriter
write the honest, grounded review to the template
Show working prompt
Write review.md following the locked template, grounded in the named inputs. (1) Wins: specific, completed things — names and numbers, not vibes. (2) Misses & slipped: honest, with a one-line why each. (3) Metrics & progress: this-week values vs prior where available. (4) Lessons learned: 2-4 concrete takeaways tied to the wins/misses. (5) Open loops: apply the carry-over rule — list every still-open prior priority and mark it resolved, dropped (with reason), or carried. (6) Next week: EXACTLY three concrete, outcome-shaped priorities. Keep it tight and skimmable; invent no accomplishments. On a loop-back fix only the flagged sections. Write the path and a confirmation that all sections + the three priorities are present to notes via write_task_note.
- Evaluatereviewer
Grade the deliverable against every acceptance criterion. All pass → finish; any fail → loop back and fix the gap.
Show working prompt
QA review.md against the locked criteria. (1) Confirm every template section is present and in order. (2) Confirm wins and misses are both populated with specific, non-generic items grounded in the inputs. (3) Apply the carry-over check: every open priority from last week's inputs is accounted for in Open loops (resolved/dropped/carried) — FAIL on any silent drop. (4) Confirm Next week is exactly three concrete priorities. (5) Spot-check 2-3 wins/metrics against the inputs for honesty. Write PASS/FAIL per criterion with specifics. Then route — this is the whole point of the loop: - **Every criterion PASSES →** call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: "evaluate", next: "finish" })`. - **Any criterion FAILS →** write the specific gaps to notes, then call `advance_task_step({ ref, stepId: "evaluate", next: "assemble" })` to loop back. The builder fixes exactly those gaps. Never route to `finish` while any criterion is unmet. The build phase's completion gate already blocked a grossly-incomplete deliverable; your job is the judgment an automated check cannot make (does it actually work, read well, look right). After ~3 unproductive loops, stop and report DONE_WITH_CONCERNS so the user can step in. - Finishdeveloper
All acceptance criteria met. Stamp a short summary and report DONE.
Show working prompt
Every acceptance criterion passed. Write a one-paragraph DONE summary to task notes via `write_task_note`: what was built, the deliverable path(s), and a one-line confirmation that each criterion is met. Then report DONE.
Triggers
Phrases that suggest this craftbook to a crew.
- weekly review
- personal retro
- end of week wrap-up
- GTD weekly review
- team retrospective
Source
View this craftbook on GitHub · MIT license