Reflect

Reflect: Self-Improving Skills

Scan the current conversation for signals (corrections, approvals, patterns) and propose updates to the skill files that were invoked during the session. Every correction should only need to happen once.

Step 1: Identify Skills Used

Scan the conversation for skill invocations. Look for:

• Explicit /skill-name calls
• Skill tool invocations (the Skill tool being called)
• Agent delegations that loaded a skill

If no skills were used this session, check whether the corrections apply to:

• General behavior → suggest a CLAUDE.md or memory update instead
• A specific skill that should have been used → note the routing gap
• Neither → report "no learnings to extract" and stop

Step 2: Extract Signals

Scan the full conversation for three signal types:

HIGH confidence (explicit corrections):

• User said "no," "don't," "never," "stop," "wrong," "not that"
• User rejected output and asked for a different approach
• User provided a specific rule ("always do X," "use Y not Z")
• User flagged an error, bad pattern, or bad output

MEDIUM confidence (validated patterns):

• User approved output without pushback ("yes," "perfect," "looks good," accepted without changes)
• A non-obvious approach worked and the user confirmed it
• User's positive reaction to a specific technique or format

LOW confidence (observations):

• Patterns that seemed to work but weren't explicitly validated
• Ambiguous signals worth reviewing later

Not a signal, skip these:

• One-time contextual decisions (e.g., "make this one shorter" doesn't mean all future outputs should be shorter)
• Task-specific details that don't generalize beyond this session
• Things already documented in the skill file, CLAUDE.md, or memory
• Corrections to biographical or company facts (those belong in brain files, not skills)
• Preferences already captured in the session brief's carried-forward sections

Step 3: Read the Target Skill Files

For each skill identified in Step 1, read its SKILL.md. Check:

• Does a ## Learnings section exist at the bottom? If not, it will be created.
• Is this learning already captured? Don't duplicate.
• Does this learning contradict an existing learning or rule? Flag the conflict for the user to resolve.

Step 4: Propose Updates

Present proposed changes in this format:

## Reflect: Session [N] Learnings

### Signals Detected
- **[HIGH]** [What happened] → [Proposed rule]
- **[MEDIUM]** [What happened] → [Proposed rule]

### Proposed Skill Updates

**[skill-name]:**
1. [HIGH] Add: "[actionable rule]"
2. [MEDIUM] Add: "[pattern description]"

### Skipped (already captured)
- [Any signals that are already in the skill or CLAUDE.md]

### No Changes (if applicable)
- [Why no updates are warranted this session]

STOP and wait for user approval before making any changes.

The user can:

• Accept all proposed changes (Y)
• Accept some, reject others (specify which)
• Modify the wording of any proposed change
• Add learnings that weren't detected
• Reject everything (no changes made)

Step 5: Apply Approved Changes

Append approved learnings to the skill's ## Learnings section at the bottom of SKILL.md:

## Learnings

<!-- Updated by /reflect. Promote stable patterns to the main skill body. -->

- **[HIGH]** Rule description here. *(Session N, YYYY-MM-DD)*
- **[MEDIUM]** Pattern description here. *(Session N, YYYY-MM-DD)*

Format rules:

• One line per learning, prefixed with confidence tag
• Include session number and date for traceability
• Write as actionable rules, not session logs ("Always X" not "The user said to do X")
• Keep each entry to one sentence. If it needs more, it's too complex for a learning: promote it directly to the main skill body instead.

Step 6: Graduation Check

After applying updates, scan the full ## Learnings section. If any learning:

• Has been present for 5+ sessions without being contradicted
• Is HIGH confidence
• Applies broadly (not an edge case)

Suggest promoting it into the main skill body (the relevant framework, principles, or guidelines section). Once promoted, remove it from ## Learnings to keep the section lean.

Tell the user which learnings are candidates for graduation and where in the skill body they'd go. Apply only with approval.

When Called from /brief

When invoked as Step 2.5 of the /brief workflow:

• Run after the brief is written, before the git question
• Keep output concise: just the signals table and proposed changes
• Skill updates are committed together with the brief in one commit
• If no learnings were detected, say so in one line and move on

When Called Standalone (/reflect)

When invoked directly:

• Run the full flow above
• Ask the user about git separately (commit the skill updates?)

Scope Boundaries

This skill does NOT:

• Modify brain files directly (suggest updates, don't apply)
• Modify CLAUDE.md (use /revise-claude-md for that; but DO suggest CLAUDE.md updates if a learning is cross-cutting)
• Modify memory files (the memory system is separate)
• Auto-commit without user approval
• Extract learnings when no skills were used (suggests alternatives instead)

Quality Gate

Before proposing any learning, ask yourself:

1. Is this generalizable? Would this apply in the next 5 sessions, not just this one?
2. Is this actionable? Can a future session follow this rule without ambiguity?
3. Is it already captured? Check the skill file, CLAUDE.md, memory, and session brief.
4. Is it the right home? Skill-specific → skill file. Cross-cutting → suggest CLAUDE.md. Company/product fact → suggest the relevant brain file.

If a session produced no generalizable learnings, that's fine. Say "no new learnings detected" and move on. Not every session teaches something new. Forcing weak learnings into skills degrades them over time.