# Epic 2 Retrospective - Work Unit Creation & Capture

**Date:** 2026-01-11
**Epic:** 2 - Work Unit Creation & Capture
**Facilitator:** Bob (Scrum Master)
**Status:** Complete

## Epic Summary

**Goal:** Users can capture Work Units right after accomplishments happen (Journey 1: "The Capture")

**FRs Covered:** FR1, FR2, FR3, FR4, FR5, FR9, FR10, FR11

**Delivery Metrics:**
- Stories Completed: 5/5 (100%)
- Total Tests: 386 (173 new in this epic)
- Code Quality: mypy --strict, ruff check/format passing
- Model Used: Claude Opus 4.5 (claude-opus-4-5-20251101)

## Stories Delivered

| Story | Title | Status | Key Deliverable |
|-------|-------|--------|-----------------|
| 2-1 | Work Unit Schema & Pydantic Model | done | JSON Schema + Pydantic models with discriminated unions |
| 2-2 | Archetype Templates | done | 9 archetypes + archetype service |
| 2-3 | Create Work Unit Command | done | `resume new work-unit` with editor integration |
| 2-4 | Quick Capture Mode | done | `--from-memory` flag for minimal capture |
| 2-5 | Work Unit Metadata & Evidence | done | Tag normalization + metadata validation |

## What Went Well

### 1. Schema Design (Story 2-1)
The discriminated union pattern for evidence types was elegant. Having `GitRepoEvidence`, `MetricsEvidence`, `DocumentEvidence`, `ArtifactEvidence`, `OtherEvidence` with `type` as discriminator gave us clean validation and type safety.

### 2. Archetype System (Story 2-2)
Nine archetypes covering different work types - from quick minimal capture to executive transformation stories. The PAR framework comments in each template provide genuine guidance for users.

### 3. Non-Interactive Mode (Story 2-3)
The `--archetype` and `--title` flags enabling fully non-interactive execution for AI agents (FR38) was well-designed. It maintains both human usability and scriptability.

### 4. Quick Capture Flow (Story 2-4)
The `--from-memory` flag is exactly what users need when they're in a hurry. Pre-set confidence to medium, minimal fields - reduces friction perfectly.

### 5. Code Review Effectiveness
The adversarial code reviews continued to find real issues. Story 2-5 caught tag normalization bugs - empty strings weren't being filtered, duplicates weren't being deduplicated. Those would have caused filtering issues in Epic 3.

## Challenges & Lessons Learned

### 1. Tag Normalization Edge Cases (Story 2-5)
**Pattern:** The `normalize_tags` validator initially just lowercased and stripped whitespace. Code review found that `['python', '', 'aws']` passed through with empty strings, and `['Python', 'python']` became `['python', 'python']` with duplicates.

**Lesson:** When building list validators, always test edge cases: empty strings, whitespace-only strings, duplicates, and order preservation.

### 2. Documentation-Code Drift (Stories 2-4, 2-5)
**Pattern:** Code review caught documentation inconsistencies. Story 2-4's task list said 'Update work unit service' but that wasn't needed. Story 2-5 referenced wrong test file name.

**Lesson:** Update story documentation as implementation reality evolves. Don't leave stale task descriptions.

### 3. Pre-existing Dependencies (Story 2-5)
**Pattern:** Story 2-5 was designed assuming it would add confidence/tags/evidence fields, but Story 2-1 had already implemented them. The story scope had to adjust.

**Lesson:** Review dependency stories thoroughly during story creation to avoid scope surprises.

## Code Review Statistics

| Story | Issues Found | HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW | Fixed |
|-------|--------------|------|--------|-----|-------|
| 2-1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2-2 | ~5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| 2-3 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| 2-4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| 2-5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |

**Total:** 22 issues found, 22 fixed

**Notable:** Lower issue count than Epic 1 (22 vs 31). The two HIGH severity issues in Story 2-5 were actual bugs in tag normalization, not just style issues.

## Previous Retrospective Follow-Through

From Epic 1 retrospective action items:

| Action Item | Status | Evidence |
|-------------|--------|----------|
| Always add exports to `__init__.py` | ✅ Applied | No code review findings for missing exports this epic |
| Add output mode tests as standard practice | ✅ Applied | JSON/quiet mode tests included in Stories 2-3, 2-4 |
| Continue adversarial code reviews | ✅ Applied | All 5 stories went through review |
| Keep shared classes in their own modules | ✅ Applied | No circular import issues |

## Technical Debt

### Debt Status
- No critical debt items requiring immediate action
- Codebase is clean and maintainable
- No shortcuts taken during implementation

## Action Items for Future Epics

| ID | Action | Owner | Status |
|----|--------|-------|--------|
| 1 | Test list validators with edge cases (empty, whitespace, duplicates) | All Devs | New |
| 2 | Keep story documentation updated as implementation evolves | All Devs | New |
| 3 | Continue adversarial code reviews for each story | SM | Ongoing |
| 4 | Maintain `__init__.py` exports and output mode tests | All Devs | Ongoing |

## Next Epic Preparation

### Epic 3: Work Unit Validation & Discovery
- **Goal**: Users can validate their Work Units and browse their collection with confidence
- **Stories**: 3 (3-1 through 3-3)
- **FRs Covered**: FR6, FR7, FR8

### Dependencies on Epic 2
- Work Unit schema and Pydantic models from Story 2-1
- Tag normalization for filtering in Story 3-3
- work-units directory structure from Story 2-3

### Readiness Assessment
- **Foundation**: Complete and stable
- **Dependencies**: All satisfied
- **Blockers**: None identified
- **Ready to Start**: Yes

## Team Acknowledgments

Epic 2 delivered the core capture experience for Resume as Code. All 5 stories completed with comprehensive test coverage (173 new tests) and clean code quality metrics. The adversarial code review process continues to prove its value, catching real bugs like tag normalization issues before they could impact downstream epics.

Journey 1: "The Capture" is now complete. Users can create Work Units with archetype templates, quick capture mode, and rich metadata including confidence levels, tags, and evidence linking.

---

*Retrospective conducted by Bob (Scrum Master) with Joshua Magady (Project Lead)*
