# Clipboardhealth Core Utils Learn From Session > You are reviewing the current Claude Code session. Your job is to surface the 2-3 most impactful findings — things that would actually change how the next session goes — not to produce an exhaustive report card. - Skill: `tomevault-io/clipboardhealth-core-utils-learn-from-session` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/clipboardhealth-core-utils-learn-from-session` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/clipboardhealth-core-utils-learn-from-session/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/clipboardhealth-core-utils-learn-from-session --- You are reviewing the current Claude Code session. Your job is to surface the 2-3 most impactful findings — things that would actually change how the next session goes — not to produce an exhaustive report card. Be candid. A session where everything scores 4/5 but you have nothing concrete to suggest is a wasted review. Prioritize specificity over coverage: one sharp observation beats five generic ones. Analyze the session transcript and produce the following: ## Agent efficiency analysis Evaluate how well the agent used tools and how much human course-correction was needed. Score each dimension 1-5. Calibration: 1=actively harmful or completely wrong approach, 2=significant waste or frequent missteps, 3=adequate but with clear room for improvement, 4=good with minor issues, 5=genuinely impressive and hard to improve on. Reserve 5 for sessions that would make you say "I wish the agent always worked like this." - **Tool precision**: Did the agent use the right tools for each task, or did it flail between tools, run unnecessary reads, or use grep when it should have used targeted file reads? - **Iteration efficiency**: How many attempts did it take to get things right? Count tool retries, failed bash commands, and edit-then-re-edit cycles. - **Context utilization**: Did the agent leverage CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, and project conventions, or did it ignore available context and make assumptions? - **Autonomy level**: How often did the agent work without human intervention? Each rejection/abort/course-correction is a friction event. - **Autonomy span**: What was the longest streak of productive tool calls without human intervention? Provide a brief narrative (2-3 sentences) explaining the scores with specific examples from the session. ## Agent quality analysis Evaluate how well the agent followed project coding standards and CLAUDE.md rules. Use the same 1-5 calibration as above. - **CLAUDE.md compliance**: Did the agent follow the rules and conventions defined in CLAUDE.md and AGENTS.md? Flag specific violations. - **Code pattern adherence**: Did the generated code follow established project patterns (naming conventions, error handling, file organization, test structure)? - **Test coverage intent**: Did the agent write or update tests when modifying behavior? Did it run tests before declaring done? - **PR hygiene**: Is the commit history clean? Are changes scoped appropriately? Did the agent avoid touching unrelated files? - **Documentation awareness**: Did the agent update relevant docs, comments, or type definitions when changing interfaces? Provide a brief narrative (2-3 sentences) explaining the scores with specific examples. ## Session reflection Surface things that would save time if known at the start of the next session. The bar for inclusion: "would I tell a teammate about this before they start working on this codebase?" Skip categories with nothing worth noting. - **Bash commands**: Commands that were used, discovered, or would have been useful to know upfront. - **Code style patterns**: Patterns followed or discovered that aren't yet documented. - **Testing approaches**: Testing strategies that worked or should have been used. - **Environment/configuration quirks**: Gotchas, workarounds, or setup details encountered. - **Warnings**: Errors, deprecations, or edge cases that tripped up the agent. ## Actionable improvements This is the most important section. Produce recommendations in these categories, but only if genuinely actionable — a suggestion the user can apply in under 5 minutes. Skip any category with nothing worth doing. ### CLAUDE.md updates **Do not suggest rules that duplicate existing automated enforcement.** If a lint rule, pre-commit hook, CI check, or other tooling already catches an issue, documenting it in CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md is redundant. Before suggesting a rule, check whether the session transcript shows the error was already caught and blocked by automated tooling (e.g. a pre-commit hook rejected the commit, a linter flagged the issue). If so, skip it — the tooling is already doing its job. For each suggestion, specify whether it belongs in: - **Team-shared** (checked into git, e.g. `./CLAUDE.md` or `./AGENTS.md`) - **Personal/local** (git-ignored, e.g. `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md`) Format each as a ready-to-paste diff: ```diff + [the addition - keep it brief] ``` ### Hooks, skills, or agents Suggest new or revised hooks, skills, or agents that would have prevented issues or improved the workflow. ### Prompt technique One concrete thing the engineer could do differently in their prompts to get better results (be specific, not generic). ### Agent pattern note One observation about how the agent behaved that the team should know about — a strength to replicate or a weakness to work around. ## Structured data block After the human-readable review, emit a fenced JSON block that a scraper can parse: ```json { "session_review": { "version": "1.1", "timestamp": "", "efficiency": { "tool_precision": <1-5>, "iteration_efficiency": <1-5>, "context_utilization": <1-5>, "autonomy_level": <1-5>, "autonomy_span": <1-5>, "friction_events": , "total_tool_calls": , "failed_tool_calls": }, "quality": { "claude_md_compliance": <1-5>, "code_pattern_adherence": <1-5>, "test_coverage_intent": <1-5>, "pr_hygiene": <1-5>, "documentation_awareness": <1-5>, "violations": [""] }, "improvements": { "claude_md_rules": [""], "hooks_skills_agents": [""], "prompt_technique": "", "agent_pattern_note": "" } } } ``` ## Presenting the review 1. Display the human-readable sections. 2. If there is an open PR for the current branch, offer to post the review as a PR comment (using `gh pr comment` with `--body-file`). 3. If the user has CLAUDE.md updates to apply, offer to apply them directly. --- > Converted and distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io/claim/clipboardhealth) — claim your Tome and manage your conversions.