Sprint retrospective
What went well, what didn't, action items. QA-flavoured retro template for sprint reviews.
Sprint Retrospective ā Sprint Number
Date: YYYY-MM-DD Facilitator: Name Attendees: List team members Sprint duration: Start date ā End date
Sprint at a Glance
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Planned story points | X |
| Completed story points | X |
| Defects raised | X |
| Defects resolved | X |
| Test pass rate | X% |
| Automation runs | X |
What Went Well?
List things the team should keep doing. Be specific ā "communication was good" is less useful than "daily defect triage kept blockers moving within 24 hours".
- Positive point 1
- Positive point 2
- Positive point 3
What Didn't Go Well?
List friction points honestly. Avoid blame ā focus on systems and processes, not individuals.
- Pain point 1
- Pain point 2
- Pain point 3
What Are We Puzzled About?
Questions, uncertainties, or things the team doesn't fully understand yet.
- Question 1
- Question 2
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| What needs to change | Name | Date | Open |
| What needs to change | Name | Date | Open |
Review of Previous Actions
| Action from last retro | Owner | Done? |
|---|---|---|
| Previous action | Name | ā / ā |
Sprint Retrospective ā Sprint 24
Date: 2024-03-15 Facilitator: Priya Mehta Attendees: Priya Mehta, Marcus Obi, Sasha Koval, Dev Patel, Ayo Adeyemi (Dev Lead), Clara Whitfield (PO) Sprint duration: 2024-03-01 ā 2024-03-14
Sprint at a Glance
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Planned story points | 42 |
| Completed story points | 38 |
| Defects raised | 11 |
| Defects resolved | 9 |
| Test pass rate | 87% |
| Automation runs | 18 (Appium regression nightly) |
What Went Well?
- Daily triage kept defects moving. The 10-minute stand-up triage we introduced in Sprint 23 meant no defect sat unassigned for more than 4 hours. Two previously blocked tickets moved to "In Progress" within the same day.
- Exploratory sessions produced high-value findings. EXP-2024-047 (Open Banking consent flow) filed two High/Medium bugs that wouldn't have been caught by scripted tests ā both fixed before UAT.
- Open Banking sandbox stability improved. After the instability in Sprint 23, the Platform team applied rate limiting to the sandbox, and we had zero provider outages across the sprint.
- Sasha's debrief notes were thorough and actionable. The written debrief from each exploratory session made it easy for Marcus to write regression cases the next day without needing a hand-off meeting.
What Didn't Go Well?
- Late build delivery on Day 3 compressed the execution window. The v3.2 build wasn't in the QA environment until 14:00 on Day 3 (planned: Day 1 morning). We recovered by parallelising, but it added stress.
- Two NOVU-2041 test cases were miscategorised as Medium and deprioritised. The timeout bug was reclassified as High only after QA escalated ā we need clearer severity guidelines for async flow failures.
- Automation suite had 4 flaky tests. NOVU-AUTO-118, 119, 124, and 131 failed intermittently on the biometric re-auth flow. They were quarantined on Day 7 but should have been caught sooner.
- Story point estimates for Open Banking were too optimistic. Three stories spilled into next sprint. Complexity of provider-specific error handling wasn't fully understood at planning.
What Are We Puzzled About?
- When the user's bank session expires mid-redirect in the Open Banking flow, is the expected behaviour defined anywhere? Dev confirmed this is undocumented ā we need product to clarify before Sprint 25.
- Should flaky tests block the nightly regression report? Currently they're excluded after quarantine, but the pass-rate metric then looks artificially high.
Action Items
| Action | Owner | Due Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add async-flow failure severity examples to the defect severity guide | Priya Mehta | 2024-03-20 | Open |
| Root-cause NOVU-AUTO-118/119/124/131 and fix or remove | Dev Patel | 2024-03-22 | Open |
| Get product clarity on mid-redirect bank session expiry behaviour | Clara Whitfield | 2024-03-19 | Open |
| Introduce build delivery SLA reminder in the Sprint kick-off checklist | Ayo Adeyemi | 2024-03-18 | Open |
| Add flaky-test handling to the definition of done | Priya Mehta | 2024-03-20 | Open |
Review of Previous Actions
| Action from Sprint 23 | Owner | Done? |
|---|---|---|
| Set up daily 10-minute triage slot | Priya Mehta | ā |
| Request Platform team rate-limit the Open Banking sandbox | Ayo Adeyemi | ā |
| Write debrief template for exploratory sessions | Sasha Koval | ā |
| Investigate Appium simulator vs real-device discrepancy | Dev Patel | ā ā rolled to Sprint 25 |
// Related templates
Defect triage notes
Triage meeting agenda, defect prioritisation grid, and decisions log. For weekly QA syncs.
Test summary report
End-of-cycle test results report. Coverage, pass/fail counts, defects found, and risk assessment.
Test closure report
Sign-off report when testing completes. Final results, lessons learned, and recommendations.
// Learn more