What happened
On PR #12, the review agent flagged the missing customer-research skill 6 times. The PR author (ggallen) explicitly dismissed the finding with a detailed explanation: the skill is optional, the harness won't attempt to load it, and the prompt handles absence gracefully. Despite this explicit human dismissal, the retro agent filed issue #13 treating the repeated finding as a gap that needed fixing. This triggered a triage → code cascade producing PR #16, which was closed without merge.
What could go better
The retro agent should incorporate human review comment context when deciding whether to file issues. When a review finding was explicitly addressed and dismissed by the PR author (not just ignored), the retro agent should treat it as resolved rather than escalating it. This is distinct from existing issues: #1583 covers the review agent recognizing human-resolved findings (not the retro agent), #2949 and #2502 cover retro quality bars for low-severity and single-instance findings (not human-dismissed findings specifically).
Proposed change
Add a pre-filing check to the retro agent's analysis: before proposing an issue from a repeated review finding, check whether the PR author or a human reviewer explicitly addressed that finding in PR comments. If a human provided a substantive dismissal (not just ignoring the comment), the retro agent should classify the finding as 'human-resolved' and not file an issue for it. The retro agent already reads PR comments — this is an analysis guidance change, not a tooling change.
Validation criteria
On the next 5 merged PRs where review findings were explicitly dismissed by human reviewers in comments, the retro agent should not file issues for those dismissed findings. Track false-positive issue filing rate over 30 days.
Generated by retro agent from fullsend-ai/agents#16
What happened
On PR #12, the review agent flagged the missing
customer-researchskill 6 times. The PR author (ggallen) explicitly dismissed the finding with a detailed explanation: the skill is optional, the harness won't attempt to load it, and the prompt handles absence gracefully. Despite this explicit human dismissal, the retro agent filed issue #13 treating the repeated finding as a gap that needed fixing. This triggered a triage → code cascade producing PR #16, which was closed without merge.What could go better
The retro agent should incorporate human review comment context when deciding whether to file issues. When a review finding was explicitly addressed and dismissed by the PR author (not just ignored), the retro agent should treat it as resolved rather than escalating it. This is distinct from existing issues: #1583 covers the review agent recognizing human-resolved findings (not the retro agent), #2949 and #2502 cover retro quality bars for low-severity and single-instance findings (not human-dismissed findings specifically).
Proposed change
Add a pre-filing check to the retro agent's analysis: before proposing an issue from a repeated review finding, check whether the PR author or a human reviewer explicitly addressed that finding in PR comments. If a human provided a substantive dismissal (not just ignoring the comment), the retro agent should classify the finding as 'human-resolved' and not file an issue for it. The retro agent already reads PR comments — this is an analysis guidance change, not a tooling change.
Validation criteria
On the next 5 merged PRs where review findings were explicitly dismissed by human reviewers in comments, the retro agent should not file issues for those dismissed findings. Track false-positive issue filing rate over 30 days.
Generated by retro agent from fullsend-ai/agents#16