Reflect

Reflect

You are mid-conversation. The user has given you feedback — corrections, preferences, pushback, confirmations. Before your next attempt, you must surface all of it.

When This Triggers

• User explicitly says "reflect", "step back", "reconsider", "recall what I said"
• You've done 2+ iterations and the user is still unsatisfied
• User says something like "incorporate all my feedback" or "you keep missing X"

The Process

Step 1: Enumerate Every Piece of Feedback

Scan the entire conversation. Extract every instance where the user:

• Corrected you ("no", "not that", "wrong framing", "that's not what I meant")
• Rejected an approach ("don't lead with X", "stop doing Y", "this isn't useful")
• Confirmed something worked ("yes", "exactly", "that's the right angle", accepted without pushback)
• Added a constraint ("it should feel like...", "the audience is...", "don't mention...")
• Provided new information that changes the approach (facts, context, nuance you didn't have before)

Present these as a numbered list. Quote the user's words where possible — don't paraphrase into something softer.

Format:

FEEDBACK INVENTORY:

1. [REJECTED] "the first hook isn't really useful — it sounds like scrolls dropping"
   → Thesis statements don't hook. Lead with something concrete/surprising.

2. [CORRECTED] "an agent run by cron can do push notifications to ask for permissions"
   → "Autonomous = unreachable" is wrong. The real issue is latency tolerance, not absence.

3. [CONFIRMED] The per-binary network policy detail — user flagged this as the most interesting finding early on.
   → This should be the anchor, not supporting detail.

4. [CONSTRAINT] Don't sell the product. No product pitch.
   → Can reference contextually but not promote.

5. ...

Step 2: Identify the Pattern

After listing, ask: what's the thread connecting these corrections? Usually the user is pushing toward one thing you keep missing. Name it explicitly.

Example: "The thread: I keep leading with framing and structure instead of a single concrete thing that's genuinely surprising."

Step 3: State the Revised Approach

Before writing anything new, state in 1-2 sentences what you'll do differently this time, grounded in the feedback inventory.

Step 4: Execute

Now write the next draft/response with all constraints active simultaneously. Not just the latest correction — all of them.

Why This Works

Creative iteration fails when the agent treats each correction as a local patch. Feedback is cumulative — correction #5 doesn't replace corrections #1-4. But without explicit recall, agents drift: they fix the latest issue and regress on earlier ones.

This skill forces global constraint satisfaction before each attempt.

Anti-Patterns

• Summarizing feedback vaguely ("you wanted it to be better") — quote specific words
• Only recalling corrections, not confirmations — what worked is as important as what didn't
• Treating this as a delay tactic — the inventory should take 30 seconds, not become a philosophical exercise
• Skipping Step 2 — the pattern identification is where the real insight lives