aar
After-Action Review—structured debrief asking what was expected, what happened, why the difference, and what next. Use after projects, launches, presentations, or any significant event.
Packaged view
This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.
Install command
npx @skill-hub/cli install neurofoo-agent-skills-aar
Repository
Skill path: aar
After-Action Review—structured debrief asking what was expected, what happened, why the difference, and what next. Use after projects, launches, presentations, or any significant event.
Open repositoryBest for
Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.
Technical facets: Full Stack.
Target audience: everyone.
License: Unknown.
Original source
Catalog source: SkillHub Club.
Repository owner: neurofoo.
This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.
What it helps with
- Install aar into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
- Review https://github.com/neurofoo/agent-skills before adding aar to shared team environments
- Use aar for development workflows
Works across
Favorites: 0.
Sub-skills: 0.
Aggregator: No.
Original source / Raw SKILL.md
--- name: aar description: After-Action Review—structured debrief asking what was expected, what happened, why the difference, and what next. Use after projects, launches, presentations, or any significant event. user-invocable: true --- # After-Action Review Conduct a structured debrief to extract learning from any significant event or experience. ## Instructions Work through the four core questions honestly and specifically. Focus on events and systems, not blaming individuals. ### Output Format **Event**: What are we reviewing? **Date**: When did it happen? **Participants**: Who was involved? --- ## 1. What Was Expected? *Before the event, what did we think would happen?* **Goals/Objectives** - [What were we trying to achieve?] **Plan** - [What was the plan to achieve it?] **Success Criteria** - [How would we know if we succeeded?] **Assumptions** - [What did we assume would be true?] --- ## 2. What Actually Happened? *Facts only—what occurred, not why* **Timeline** | Time | Event | |------|-------| | [When] | [What happened] | **Outcomes** - [What results did we get?] **Compared to Expected** | Expected | Actual | Gap | |----------|--------|-----| | [expectation] | [reality] | [+/-] | --- ## 3. Why the Difference? *Analysis of the gap between expected and actual* **What Went Well** (sustain these) | Success | Contributing Factors | |---------|---------------------| | [what worked] | [why it worked] | **What Didn't Go Well** (improve these) | Problem | Root Cause | |---------|-----------| | [what failed] | [why it failed] | **Surprises** - [Things we didn't anticipate] --- ## 4. What Do We Do Next? *Specific actions to sustain or improve* **Sustain** (keep doing these) | Action | Owner | How to Protect It | |--------|-------|-------------------| | [what to continue] | [who] | [mechanism] | **Improve** (change these) | Action | Owner | By When | |--------|-------|---------| | [what to change] | [who] | [deadline] | --- **Key Takeaways** Top 3 lessons from this review: 1. [Lesson] 2. [Lesson] 3. [Lesson] **Follow-up** When will we check if improvements are working? ## Guidelines - Do this soon—memory fades fast - Be specific: "Communication failed" → "We didn't update Slack until hour 3" - Balance: Include what went well, not just problems - Assign owners: Insights without ownership become forgotten - Make it safe: Blame shuts down honesty $ARGUMENTS