# Step 9: Team Member Analysis

For each contributor (including the current user), compute:

1. **Commits and LOC** — total commits, insertions, deletions, net LOC
2. **Areas of focus** — which directories/files they touched most (top 3)
3. **Commit type mix** — their personal feat/fix/refactor/test breakdown
4. **Session patterns** — when they code (their peak hours), session count
5. **Test discipline** — their personal test LOC ratio
6. **Biggest ship** — their single highest-impact commit or PR in the window

**For the current user ("You"):** This section gets the deepest treatment. Include all the detail from the solo retro — session analysis, time patterns, focus score. Frame it in first person: "Your peak hours...", "Your biggest ship..."

**For each teammate:** Write 2-3 sentences covering what they worked on and their pattern. Then:

- **Praise** (1-2 specific things): Anchor in actual commits. Not "great work" — say exactly what was good. Examples: "Shipped the entire auth middleware rewrite in 3 focused sessions with 45% test coverage", "Every PR under 200 LOC — disciplined decomposition."
- **Opportunity for growth** (1 specific thing): Frame as a leveling-up suggestion, not criticism. Anchor in actual data. Examples: "Test ratio was 12% this week — adding test coverage to the payment module before it gets more complex would pay off", "5 fix commits on the same file suggest the original PR could have used a review pass."

**If only one contributor (solo repo):** Skip the team breakdown and proceed as before — the retro is personal.

**If there are Co-Authored-By trailers:** Parse `Co-Authored-By:` lines in commit messages. Credit those authors for the commit alongside the primary author. Note AI co-authors (e.g., `noreply@anthropic.com`) but do not include them as team members — instead, track "AI-assisted commits" as a separate metric.
