patrickserrano CLAUDE.md Review
A quick self-check, not a pipeline: read back over this conversation, find places where the human corrected something a project rule should have already covered, and propose a small, bounded edit. Nothing here gets applied without the human reviewing it first.
Process
- Scan this conversation for corrections, "no, actually", or repeated
clarifications — the same signal
skill-tuning-loop's Mine stage looks for in past sessions, except you already have the transcript in context. - For each one, classify it:
- Already covered, ignored anyway — the relevant CLAUDE.md already says this; the fix is emphasis or clarity, not new content.
- Genuinely missing — no existing rule addresses it; a new line would have prevented the correction.
- One-off — specific to this task, not a durable project convention. Don't propose an edit for this; CLAUDE.md is for what generalizes.
- Propose a MINIMAL diff for the "genuinely missing" and "ignored anyway" cases only. Match the file's existing voice and structure — don't restructure sections that aren't implicated. State the rule concretely (name the specific convention), not "follow best practices."
- Present the diff, don't apply it. Show the human the proposed addition and why (quote the correction that motivated it). They edit the file, not you — CLAUDE.md is read on every session for every task in the project; a bad edit here is a bad edit everywhere.
When to reach for skill-tuning-loop instead
This skill only ever sees one conversation, so it can mistake a one-off
correction for a durable pattern. If the same friction keeps showing up
across sessions and you want a validated, evidence-gated proposal rather
than a quick check, that's what skill-tuning-loop is for.