Original 4

The classic retrospective that laid the foundation for every method that followed. Built around four questions proposed by Norman Kerth in Project Retrospectives: A Handbook for Team Reviews, it asks what went well, what didn't, what the team learned and what still puzzles it. This timeless structure helps teams reflect honestly and keep striving for continuous improvement.

What went well?

Successes worth naming out loud, however small

Roman

The migration ran without downtime

Maria

Two juniors picked up review duty and it stuck

What didn’t go so well?

Problems and misses — the facts, before the reasons

Anna

We missed the sprint goal by two tickets, again

Daria

The hotfix skipped review and broke search

What have I learned?

Insights you would pass to a teammate starting the same work

Maria

That feature flags are cheaper than long-lived branches

Kirill

That our biggest customer runs an old browser we do not test

What still puzzles me?

Open questions the team has not answered yet

Daria

Why the same three tickets keep rolling over

Roman

Whether the new metric actually reflects user pain

Try Template

What is the Original 4 retrospective?

The Original 4 is the classic retrospective format rooted in the work of Esther Derby and Diana Larsen, authors of the foundational book on agile retrospectives. It uses four open questions to guide the team through reflection, balancing celebration, honesty, learning, and open curiosity. Because it is simple and battle-tested, it remains one of the safest choices for teams running their first retrospective or returning to fundamentals.

What went well?
What didn't go so well?
What have I learned?
What still puzzles me?

What went well?

Start with successes to build psychological safety. Acknowledging wins reminds the team of its strengths before diving into harder topics.

What didn't go so well?

Discuss the problems and friction without blame. Clear naming of issues is the first step toward fixing them.

What have I learned?

Capture insights gained during the sprint, technical or personal. This turns experience into shared knowledge for the whole team.

What still puzzles me?

Surface open questions and lingering uncertainty. These puzzles often point to the most valuable areas for the team to explore next.

Benefits of this retrospective

Proven, widely understood structure
Balances positives, negatives, learning, and curiosity
Ideal for teams new to retrospectives
The puzzle question uncovers hidden risks
Flexible enough for any kind of project

How to run the Original 4 retrospective

Create a board in QRetro using the Original 4 template.
Invite your team and let everyone add notes silently.
Group similar cards and read through each column.
Discuss the puzzles to uncover risks and open questions.
Vote on the most important topics to prioritize.
Agree on action items with clear owners and deadlines.

Similar templates

Other formats teams pair with this one — open any of them as a board in one click.

Starfish Retrospective

The Starfish gives the team five degrees of nuance instead of a simple good-or-bad split. Across keep doing, more of, less of, start doing and stop doing, participants fine-tune their practices rather than just label them. This granularity is especially useful for mature teams that want to adjust what already works rather than overhaul everything.

Three Little Pigs

Based on the fairy tale, this retrospective sorts the team's work by how sturdy it is. The house of straw stands for things that could easily fall apart, the house of sticks for what works but needs reinforcing, and the house of bricks for what is solid and stable. The playful metaphor makes it easy to spot fragile areas before they collapse.

Dot Voting

A fast, democratic way to prioritize when there are more topics or ideas than time to discuss them. Everyone gets a limited number of dots to spend on the items that matter most to them, and the team's attention naturally flows to what gathers the most votes. It's a simple technique to reach quick alignment without long debates.

Speed Car Retrospective

The Speed Car pictures the team as a vehicle racing toward its goals. The engine is everything that makes the team go faster, while the parachute is whatever drags it back and slows it down. This compact, two-part metaphor sparks a focused conversation about accelerators and brakes in the team's way of working.

Happy - Meh - Sad

A quick emotional check-in that takes the team's temperature with just three faces. Participants sort their experiences into happy, meh and sad, giving a fast read on overall mood without heavy structure. It works well as a warm-up or for short, frequent retrospectives where time is tight.

Idea Prioritization

A focused format for turning a pile of ideas into a clear plan of action. The team sorts proposals into low, medium and high priority, making it obvious where to direct energy first. It's especially handy at the end of a brainstorm, when many ideas need to be ranked before anything can move forward.

Try Template