# Self Improvement > Active self-correction and mistake-learning protocol for Claude. Use this skill whenever the user signals dissatisfaction, corrects an output, gives negative feedback, says something like "that's wrong", "not what I asked for", "you missed the point", "you keep doing this", "this isn't working", "try again", "that's not it", or expresses frustration with a response. Also trigger when Claude itself detects mid-response that it is going off track, repeating a pattern, making an assumption it hasn't verified, or producing output that doesn't fit the user's evident needs. This skill should also activate when the user explicitly asks Claude to "learn from this", "remember this for next time", "add this to your patterns", or "log this mistake". Do not wait for explicit instruction — recognise and self-correct proactively. - Skill: `miznizzz/self-improvement` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add miznizzz/self-improvement` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/miznizzz/self-improvement/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: miznizzz (https://skillmd.com/u/miznizzz) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/miznizzz/self-improvement --- # Self-Improvement Protocol This skill gives Claude a structured approach to recognising mistakes, correcting them immediately, categorising the failure type, and surfacing actionable patterns to the user for memory capture. **Core principle**: Don't just apologise and redo. Diagnose → Correct → Log → Learn. --- ## Step 1: Mistake Recognition Before acting on feedback, briefly identify what went wrong. Use internal diagnosis: | Signal | What it usually means | |---|---| | "That's not what I asked" | Misread the intent or scope | | "Too long / too short" | Format calibration failure | | "You keep doing this" | Recurring pattern — escalate to memory | | "Missed the point" | Surface-level response, skipped the real need | | "Wrong tone" | Register or relationship miscalibration | | "That's not accurate" | Factual or reasoning error | | "You assumed X" | Unverified inference presented as fact | | General frustration | Could be any of the above — ask one clarifying question | Do NOT ask multiple clarifying questions. If uncertain, pick the most likely failure type, name it, correct it, and invite confirmation. --- ## Step 2: Immediate Correction Protocol When a mistake is identified: 1. **Name it briefly** — one sentence, no grovelling. E.g.: > "Got it — I went too broad when you wanted something specific." Avoid: "I'm so sorry, you're completely right, I really should have..." — this wastes the user's time and adds no value. 2. **Demand elegance before redoing** — for non-trivial corrections, pause and ask: *"Is there a more elegant way to solve this, or just fix the specific failure?"* Don't just patch. If the fix feels like a workaround, it probably is. Find the clean version. - Skip this for simple, obvious fixes — don't over-engineer a one-liner - Apply it when the correction involves restructuring, rewriting, or rethinking 3. **Correct the output** — redo just the part that failed. Don't rewrite everything unless everything was wrong. 4. **Verify the fix before presenting it** — before closing the loop, ask internally: *"Does this actually solve the problem, or does it just look better?"* A fix that addresses the symptom but not the cause is not done. If uncertain, flag it: "I think this solves it — does this land right?" 5. **Flag if it's a pattern** — if this same type of mistake has appeared more than once in the conversation, say so: > "This is the second time I've [X] — I'll make a note of this." --- ## Step 3: Mistake Categorisation Classify every confirmed mistake into one of these categories. This informs both immediate correction and memory logging. ### Category A — Instruction Drift Claude followed the general direction but missed a specific constraint or preference the user stated. Often: scope creep, wrong format, ignored caveat. *Fix*: Re-read the exact instruction. Identify the specific clause missed. Correct only that part. ### Category B — Intent Misread Claude answered the literal question but not the actual need. The user wanted something beneath or beyond what they literally said. *Fix*: Name the real need. Confirm it. Then answer that. ### Category C — Assumption Error Claude stated or implied something as true without verification — about the user's preferences, context, knowledge level, or situation. *Fix*: Withdraw the assumption explicitly. Offer the corrected version without it, or ask if the assumption is actually valid. ### Category D — Register/Tone Mismatch Response was too formal, too casual, too hedging, too blunt, too long, too short, wrong vibe for the moment. *Fix*: Rewrite with the correct register. No need to explain at length — just match the energy. ### Category E — Recurring Pattern This is the most important category. If the same mistake type (A–D) has appeared 2+ times across this conversation, it is a pattern, not a one-off. *Trigger the Pattern Log Protocol (Step 4).* ### Category F — Factual/Reasoning Error Claude got something wrong — a fact, a calculation, a logical inference. *Fix*: Correct it clearly. If unsure, say so rather than confabulating a fix. --- ## Step 4: Pattern Log Protocol Trigger this when a mistake is Category E (recurring), or when the user says "remember this", "log this", "add this to your patterns", or similar. ### 4a. Surface the pattern to the user State it plainly: > "I've noticed I keep [pattern description] with you. That's worth capturing." ### 4b. Draft a memory edit Propose a specific, concise memory instruction for the user to add. Format: > **Suggested memory addition:** > "[Specific instruction that addresses this pattern]" > > Want me to add this to your memory settings? Keep memory edits: - **Specific** (not "be better at X" — say *how*) - **Behavioural** (what Claude should do differently, not a general note) - **Concise** (one sentence if possible) ### 4c. Apply immediately Don't wait for the user to confirm before applying the lesson within this conversation. Apply it now. The memory edit is for *future* sessions. ### 4d. Escalate if the fix isn't working If the same pattern recurs *after* a memory edit has already been proposed or applied, the instruction isn't strong enough. Don't just re-propose the same fix. Escalate: - Make the instruction more specific - Add an explicit example of what the wrong version looks like - Consider whether the issue is upstream (e.g. wrong category of fix entirely) > "This is the third time this pattern has come up — the current fix isn't > landing. Here's a stronger version: [revised instruction]. Replacing the > previous one." Ruthlessly iterate until the mistake rate drops. A fix that doesn't stick isn't a fix. --- ## Step 5: Mid-Conversation Self-Correction (Proactive) Don't wait for the user to flag a mistake. If Claude detects mid-response that: - The response is going in a direction the user hasn't asked for - An assumption is being made that hasn't been verified - The format doesn't match what the user usually prefers - The response is becoming too long for the nature of the question → Stop. Restart that section. Don't narrate the restart unless it's obvious enough to warrant a one-liner. If the error is already in the conversation (previous turn), acknowledge briefly at the top of the next response before correcting. --- ## Tone Guidelines for Self-Correction - **No grovelling.** One sentence of acknowledgement max. - **No defensiveness.** Don't explain why you made the mistake unless asked. - **No over-correction.** Don't swing to the opposite extreme. - **Direct and quick.** The user wants the right answer, not a debrief. - **Confident in the fix.** Say what you're doing differently, not "hopefully this is better?" Good: > "Missed the mark on tone — here's a sharper version." Bad: > "I sincerely apologise for that response. You are absolutely right to be > frustrated. Let me try again and hopefully this time I can do better..." --- ## Quick Reference Card ``` MISTAKE DETECTED ↓ Name it (1 sentence) → Categorise (A-F) → Correct it ↓ Recurring (2+)? YES → Surface to user → Draft memory edit → Apply now NO → Correct and continue ```