Retrospective Formats | Agile & Scrum Exercises

1 / 5

During a Start / Stop / Continue retrospective, a developer says:

"I think we should START doing a short async update in our team Slack channel 30 minutes before standup — just a few bullet points on what you did and what you plan. That way the standup itself can focus entirely on blockers."

Which retrospective category does this suggestion correctly belong to, and why?

The Start / Stop / Continue format sorts team improvements into three buckets:

Category	Definition	Example signal
Start	New practice the team should adopt — not yet part of any routine	"We should START doing X"
Stop	Existing practice that is creating friction or waste and should be discontinued	"We should STOP doing Y"
Continue	Practice that is working well and the team wants to deliberately keep doing	"We should CONTINUE doing Z"

The async pre-standup update is a new practice — the team does not currently do it. The team member explicitly says "we should START," which is the correct signal. It does not stop the standup; it adds a complementary channel. A valid Start item must be actionable and specific enough to try next sprint.

2 / 5

The team is closing a retrospective. The Scrum Master says: "Let's check our action items before we finish. Each one should be specific, assigned to someone, and time-boxed."

Which of the following retrospective action items is correctly formulated?

A well-formed retro action item follows the SMART pattern — it must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Let's evaluate each option:

Option	Problem
A — "communicate more clearly"	Vague: no specific action, not assigned, not measurable, no deadline
B — "everyone should…"	Not assigned to a named person — "everyone" means no one is accountable
C — "at some point…"	No deadline — "next few sprints" is indefinite and will never be reviewed
D — "Ana will… by end of Sprint 18"	✓ Specific action, single owner, verifiable output, clear deadline

The three most common retro action item failures are: (1) no named owner, (2) no concrete deadline, and (3) no observable outcome. Vague commitments feel productive in the moment but are forgotten by the next sprint.

3 / 5

The team is running a 4Ls retrospective (Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed For). A developer adds a sticky note that says:

"I LEARNED that our deployment pipeline has a manual approval step that most of the team didn't even know existed — we discovered it only when a release was blocked for 4 hours waiting for sign-off."

Which of the 4Ls does this note correctly belong to?

The 4Ls format gives each insight a clear home based on its nature:

Category	What belongs here	Example
Liked	Things that went well; positive experiences worth acknowledging	"I liked our pair programming sessions this sprint"
Learned	New knowledge or insights gained during the sprint	"I learned the deployment pipeline has a manual approval step"
Lacked	Missing tools, information, skills, or support that slowed the team	"We lacked clear documentation on the approval process"
Longed For	Desired improvements or capabilities not yet available	"I long for an automated approval trigger in the pipeline"

The key word in the sticky note is "I LEARNED" — this explicitly signals new knowledge acquired during the sprint. Note that this same incident could also generate a Lacked note ("we lacked pipeline documentation") and a Longed For note ("we want automated approvals") — those would be separate cards.

4 / 5

The Scrum Master is facilitating a sailboat retrospective. The team has placed the boat in the centre of the board and drawn different elements around it. The facilitator asks the team to add sticky notes to the anchors beneath the boat.

What do the anchors represent in a sailboat retrospective?

The sailboat retrospective uses nautical metaphors to categorise team feedback:

Metaphor	Represents
⛵ The sailboat	The team itself
☀️ The island / destination	The team's goal or product vision
💨 The wind (sails)	Things helping the team move forward — tailwinds, strengths
⚓ Anchors	Things slowing the team down — impediments, friction, drag
🪨 Rocks (some variants)	Risks and hazards ahead

Anchors (Option C) are current impediments — slow CI pipelines, unclear requirements, frequent context-switching, missing tooling. Option A (future risks) maps to rocks, not anchors. Option B (goals) maps to the island destination. The anchor metaphor is physical: an anchor pulls the boat back, preventing forward motion.

5 / 5

At the end of a sprint retrospective, four action items are proposed. The Scrum Master checks each one against the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound).

Which action item is correctly formulated as a SMART improvement?

Let's evaluate each option against the SMART criteria:

Option	S	M	A	R	T
A — Hiroshi, CI coverage report, Sprint 16	✓	✓ (report exists)	✓	✓	✓ (last day S16)
B — "the team should improve coverage"	✗ vague	✗ no number	?	✓	✗ no deadline
C — "someone will look into…"	✗ vague	✗	?	✓	✗ no deadline
D — "we will all be more careful"	✗	✗	✗	✓	✗

A SMART retro action item must have one named owner, a concrete deliverable, and a specific deadline. "We will all" and "someone will" are accountability traps — when everyone is responsible, no one is.