docs: add runtime workload contracts retro

docs/retros/2026-05-31-runtime-workload-contracts-retro.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Retro: Runtime Workload Contracts
+
+**PR:** #31 - feat: add runtime workload contracts
+**Merged:** 2026-05-31
+**Branch:** feat/runtime-workload-contracts
+**Design:** docs/plans/2026-05-31-runtime-workload-contracts-design.md
+**Plan:** docs/plans/2026-05-31-runtime-workload-contracts.md
+**Related ADRs:** none
+
+## Adversarial-review findings, scored
+
+| Phase | Finding | Severity | Outcome |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| plan | New compute-core tag required after merge before workflow-compute can consume the contracts | Important | Prescient - `v0.3.1` was tagged from the merge commit and release CI was monitored. |
+
+## Gate misses
+
+No gate misses this PR. All downstream issues were caught by the gate they were assigned to, or were genuinely novel and not in any gate's bug-class scope.
+
+| Issue | Gate that missed | Why it slipped | Fix idea |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| none | none | CI and review remained green; no review threads or changes-requested reviews were opened. | none |
+
+## Missed skill activations
+
+| Gate | Fired? | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| brainstorming | yes | Runtime workload contracts were scoped as the prerequisite for workflow-compute RTE-1 extraction. |
+| adversarial-design-review (design) | partial | The committed design was attacked in the PR adversarial-review comment rather than as a separate committed report. |
+| writing-plans | yes | Plan doc committed with tasks, deferred issues, and verification commands. |
+| adversarial-design-review (plan) | partial | Plan findings were recorded in the PR adversarial-review comment. |
+| alignment-check | not recorded | No `.claude/autodev-state` audit file exists in this repo for this PR. |
+| subagent-driven-development | not recorded | No `.claude/autodev-state` audit file exists in this repo for this PR. |
+| finishing-a-development-branch | yes | PR #31 was created, monitored, merged, and tagged. |
+| pr-monitoring | yes | PR checks, review threads, and changes-requested reviews were monitored until clean. |
+| post-merge-retrospective | yes | This file. |
+
+## What worked
+
+- The design kept host-owned authorization, secret resolution, allowlists, and proof mutation out of compute-core.
+- CI covered both the public protocol tests and the wfctl contract validation before merge.
+- The adversarial review identified the release dependency, and the merge was followed by a `v0.3.1` tag.
+
+## What didn't
+
+- The design and plan adversarial reviews were captured as a PR comment instead of committed phase reports, so later retros have less structured evidence.
+- The repo has no skill activation audit log for this PR, so missed-activation scoring depends on visible artifacts and command history.
+
+## Plugin-level follow-ups
+
+No plugin-level changes are warranted from this single PR.
+
+## Project guidance updates
+
+| Guidance file | Change | Reason |
+|---|---|---|
+| `docs/design-guidance.md` | no change | No durable cross-design lesson was found; this was an additive public contract release. |