retro-marimo-pair
marimo-team/marimo-pair
Analyze pairing sessions to identify friction and improve marimo-pair skill or marimo._code_mode API.
What is retro-marimo-pair?
A conversational retrospective tool for marimo team members to review pairing sessions, surface friction points, and diagnose root causes in the marimo-pair skill or underlying notebook metaprogramming API. Use it after a session to turn frustrations into actionable improvements.
- Guides structured session analysis to identify user frustration, inefficiency, errors, workarounds, and context loss
- Walks through root-cause lenses (skill structure, gaps, misleading docs, API ergonomics, missing features, bugs, context window)
- Produces clear diagnoses with contributing factors and trade-off considerations for the team to triage
- Helps draft issues or discussions without auto-filing or committing to fixes
- Supports optional skill edits or API changes only after explicit user approval
How to install retro-marimo-pair
npx skills add https://github.com/marimo-team/marimo-pair --skill retro-marimo-pairHow to use retro-marimo-pair
- 1.Invoke the skill with a trigger like 'retro', 'what went wrong', 'improve the skill', 'session review', 'friction', or /retro-marimo-pair
- 2.Provide context about the pairing session (conversation history, specific complaints, or general review request)
- 3.Review the numbered friction-point summary and select which ones to dig into
- 4.Work through root-cause lenses for each selected point to converge on the most likely cause
- 5.Decide whether to draft the diagnosis as an issue/discussion for the team or (if explicitly requested) propose a skill or API change
- 6.Approve any proposed edits before they are applied
Use cases
- Review a pairing session where Claude repeatedly misunderstood marimo-pair instructions and correct the skill docs
- Identify that marimo._code_mode lacks a method needed for a common workflow and propose an API addition
- Diagnose why a user had to work around a limitation instead of using the skill directly
- Analyze multiple friction points from a session and prioritize which ones to file as team issues
- Capture context-window problems where Claude forgot guard rails mid-conversation
- marimo team members conducting internal retrospectives
- Skill maintainers reviewing pairing session logs for improvement opportunities
- Contributors diagnosing API ergonomics or documentation gaps
retro-marimo-pair FAQ
No. The default outcome is to diagnose friction and file an issue or discussion for the team to triage. Only if you explicitly ask will the skill draft a change, and even then it requires your sign-off before applying.
The skill surfaces all of them in Step 1, then lets you choose which ones to dig into. You don't have to analyze every point—focus on the ones that matter most to you.
Yes. Run `import marimo._code_mode as cm` in your notebook scratchpad, then use `async with cm.get_context() as ctx:` to list and inspect all public methods and attributes.
The skill helps you diagnose both. It walks through lenses like skill structure, gaps, and misleading docs for the skill itself, and API ergonomics, missing features, and bugs for marimo._code_mode.
No. The skill has a guard rail: it will never edit files in github://marimo-team/marimo-pair without explicit user approval.
Full instructions (SKILL.md)
Source of truth, from marimo-team/marimo-pair.
name: retro-marimo-pair description: >- Session retrospective for improving marimo-pair and marimo._code_mode. Use when the user wants to analyze friction from a pairing session, identify what went wrong, and brainstorm improvements to the skill docs or the underlying API. Trigger on: "retro", "what went wrong", "improve the skill", "session review", "friction", or /retro-marimo-pair.
Session Retrospective
You are helping a marimo team member review a pairing session to find friction and turn it into improvements. The target is always one or both of:
- The marimo-pair skill (
github://marimo-team/marimo-pair) marimo._code_mode— the underlying notebook metaprogramming API
This is a conversation, not an automated report. You surface findings, the user steers which ones matter, and together you decide what to do about them.
Guard Rails
- NEVER edit files in
github://marimo-team/marimo-pairwithout explicit user approval. - ALWAYS start with session analysis (Step 1) — do not jump to solutions.
- Present friction points before root causes — let the user choose which ones to dig into.
- If the user invoked with a specific complaint, focus your analysis there but still scan for other friction in the background.
Step 1: Session Analysis
Review the current conversation and identify friction. Look for:
| Signal | What to look for |
|---|---|
| User frustration | Corrections ("no not that"), repeated attempts, backtracking, confusion, tone shifts |
| Inefficiency | Multiple rounds for a one-step task, over-engineering, wrong API usage |
| Errors | Compile-check failures, runtime errors, silent failures, wrong output |
| Workarounds | User or Claude working around a limitation instead of doing it directly |
| Context loss | Claude forgetting instructions from earlier, re-asking things the skill covers |
Present a numbered summary of friction points found. For each, note:
- What happened (brief)
- Where in the conversation it occurred (quote or paraphrase)
- Initial category guess (skill structure / skill gap / API issue / etc.)
Then ask: "Which of these should we dig into? Or is there something I missed?"
Step 2: Root Cause Discussion
For each friction point the user selects, work through these lenses:
| Lens | Question | Example improvement |
|---|---|---|
| Skill structure | Was the right info in the skill but hard to find? Buried in reference/ when it should be in SKILL.md? | Promote to guard rail, restructure progressive disclosure |
| Skill gap | Was information missing entirely from the skill? | Add new section, example, or anti-pattern |
| Misleading docs | Did the skill say something that led Claude astray? | Correct the docs, add clarifying examples |
| API ergonomics | Was _code_mode clunky or unintuitive for this task? | Propose API improvement (better defaults, clearer errors) |
| Missing API | Is there something _code_mode simply can't do that it should? | Design a new API surface |
| API bug | Did _code_mode behave incorrectly? | Characterize the bug, propose fix or workaround |
| Context window | Did Claude forget instructions due to long context? | Shorter, more prominent guard rails |
Discuss each lens briefly, then converge on the most likely root cause with the user. It's okay to have multiple contributing causes.
Step 3: Diagnose & Capture
The goal of a retro is diagnosis, not a contribution. Based on the root cause, write up a clear diagnosis the team can act on — don't jump to proposing or authoring a fix.
For each friction point, produce:
- Diagnosis — What went wrong and why it was frustrating, in plain terms
- Contributing factors — Skill structure, gap, misleading docs, API ergonomics, missing API, API bug, context window (from Step 2)
- Considerations — Trade-offs, open questions, or things that would need to be true for a fix to make sense. Note possible directions here, but frame them as considerations rather than committed solutions.
The default next step is to capture the diagnosis as an issue or discussion so the team can weigh it — not to immediately make a contribution. Concrete code changes (skill edits, API designs) come after an issue/discussion exists and the user explicitly chooses to go further.
Present the diagnosis and ask: "Want me to draft this as an issue or discussion?"
Step 4: File or Follow Up
Default: file an issue / discussion
Write it up clearly for the marimo team to triage:
- Problem: What happened and why it's painful
- Current behavior: What the skill or
_code_modedoes today - Considerations: Trade-offs and open questions (not a committed solution)
- Example: A minimal snippet or quote from the session, if helpful
Leave the actual filing to the user — do not auto-file. This is the preferred outcome: surface friction for the team rather than ship a fix from the retro.
Only if the user explicitly wants to go further
A skill edit or API change should follow an issue/discussion, not replace it. If — and only if — the user explicitly asks to draft a change now:
- Read the target file in
github://marimo-team/marimo-pair - Show the proposed diff to the user
- Only apply after explicit sign-off
- After applying, verify SKILL.md stays under 500 lines (reference/ files have no limit)
Wrapping up
After completing the cycle for the selected friction points, ask if the user wants to revisit any remaining items from Step 1, or if the retro is done.
Key Files Reference
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
github://marimo-team/marimo-pair/SKILL.md | Main skill instructions |
github://marimo-team/marimo-pair/reference/execute-code.md | Scratchpad & cell operation recipes |
github://marimo-team/marimo-pair/reference/rich-representations.md | Widget & display patterns |
github://marimo-team/marimo-pair/scripts/ | Bundled discovery & execution scripts |
To inspect the live _code_mode API surface during a retro, the user can
run in their notebook scratchpad:
import marimo._code_mode as cm
async with cm.get_context() as ctx:
# List all public methods/attributes
print([x for x in dir(ctx) if not x.startswith('_')])
help(ctx)
Related skills
More from marimo-team/marimo-pair and the wider catalog.

marimo-pair
Drive a live marimo notebook: run Python in the kernel, inspect state, and commit changes.

add-molab-badge
Add 'Open in molab' badges linking to marimo notebooks in READMEs, docs, and websites.

anywidget-generator
Generate interactive anywidget components for marimo notebooks with vanilla JavaScript and CSS.

auto-paper-demo
Automatically generate interactive marimo notebook demos from research papers without user input.

implement-paper
Turn research papers into interactive marimo notebooks with guided implementation.

implement-paper-auto
Automatically implement research papers as interactive marimo notebooks with minimal code examples.