# Operations Skill Improve

> operations-skill-improve

- Skill: `sabahudin-web/operations-skill-improve` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add sabahudin-web/operations-skill-improve`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sabahudin-web/operations-skill-improve/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: sabahudin-web (https://skillmd.com/u/sabahudin-web)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sabahudin-web/operations-skill-improve

---


# operations-skill-improve

Takes a correction, preference, or lesson from the current session and writes it permanently into the relevant skill's SKILL.md. The goal: the skill learns from every real run. Next time it runs, it already knows what you don't like.

This is the skill feedback loop — what the user says in a session becomes a rule in the skill itself.

---

## Steps

1. Identify the skill that produced the output being corrected:
   - If the user named it: use it directly
   - If unclear: look at what was run most recently in this session and ask "Is the feedback about [skill name]?"
   - If completely ambiguous: ask "Which skill produced the output you want to improve?"

2. Read the full current `SKILL.md` for that skill from `.claude/skills/[skill-name]/SKILL.md`.

3. Understand the correction by extracting three things from the conversation:
   - **What happened:** what the skill did that the user didn't like
   - **What should happen instead:** the desired behavior
   - **How general is this:** is this always true (add as a rule) or only in certain conditions (add with "when X, do Y")?

4. Translate the correction into a clear, actionable instruction in imperative form. Examples:
   - Bad: "The user didn't like the long intro paragraph"
   - Good: "Skip intro paragraphs — start directly with the first insight or action item"

   - Bad: "The formatting was wrong"
   - Good: "Use bullet points for lists of 3+ items — never use numbered lists for non-sequential content"

   - Bad: "The tone was off"
   - Good: "Write in the user's voice — lowercase, direct, no filler phrases like 'leveraging' or 'streamlining'"

5. Determine where in the SKILL.md this instruction belongs:
   - **In the steps:** if it changes HOW a specific step is executed — add it inside that step
   - **In edge cases:** if it handles a specific situation — add it to the Edge Cases section
   - **As a new "Quality rules" section:** if it's a general quality standard that applies across multiple steps — add it before Edge Cases

6. **CHECKPOINT — always stop here.** Show the user exactly what will change:

   ```
   SKILL UPDATE — [skill-name]
   ══════════════════════════════

   Feedback: [what the user said]

   I'll add this rule:
   "[the instruction in imperative form]"

   Location: [Step X / Edge Cases / New Quality Rules section]

   Approve to write, or edit the instruction before I do.
   ```

7. Once approved, make the edit to the SKILL.md using the minimum change needed — add the rule where it belongs, do not rewrite the entire file.

8. Confirm: "Updated [skill-name]. Next time it runs, it will [describe the new behavior in one sentence]."

9. Optionally log to `inbox/outputs/task-log.md`: "Skill improved: [skill-name] — [one-line description of the rule added]"

---

## Quality rules for the instruction itself

The instruction you write into the SKILL.md must:
- Be in imperative form ("Do X", "Skip Y", "Always Z")
- Be specific enough that you'd know exactly what to do (or not do) without re-reading the conversation
- Not conflict with existing instructions in the file — check before adding
- Not be so narrow it only applies to one edge case that will never recur — generalize the lesson

If the user's correction is vague ("just make it better"), ask: "What specifically didn't work? The length, the tone, the structure, the content?"

---

## Edge cases

- **User corrects something that's already in the SKILL.md:** Say "That rule already exists in the skill — it may not have been followed this time. Want me to strengthen the wording, or is this a different situation?"
- **Correction contradicts an existing rule:** Show both — the existing rule and the new correction. Ask: "This conflicts with an existing instruction. Which should take priority?"
- **User wants to remove a behavior entirely:** Treat it as a "never do X" rule — add it explicitly, don't just delete the thing they don't like
- **Skill doesn't exist yet (ad-hoc session):** Tell the user: "This wasn't run from a saved skill. Want me to create one from scratch based on what we built?"
- **Multiple skills involved in the output:** Ask which one to update — or update both if the correction applies to both