# Hindsight > Reviews everything accomplished in the current session end-to-end, distills genuine process lessons (not one-off content specifics), and saves the durable ones as persistent memory, updating an existing related memory in place rather than duplicating it. Trigger on "get some hindsight," "run a hindsight pass," "what should we improve," "review today and notate lessons," "what did you learn today," "save what's worth remembering from this session." Does not redo or re-open any of the session's actual work, and never fabricates a lesson just to have something to report. - Skill: `yogiraja/hindsight` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add yogiraja/hindsight` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/yogiraja/hindsight/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - License: MIT - Author: YogirajA (https://skillmd.com/u/yogiraja) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/yogiraja/hindsight --- # Hindsight A session-end self-improvement pass. Read-only against the session's actual work (it never redoes or re-opens a task) and write-only against memory. User-triggered only: a hindsight pass writes persistent memory, so timing stays the user's call, never something run on a hunch. ## When this fires On-demand only: "get some hindsight," "run a hindsight pass," "what should we improve," "review today and notate lessons," "what did you learn today," "save what's worth remembering from this session." ## Process Review the full body of work completed in this session: every task, decision, correction, and course-change from start to finish, not just the most recent exchange. Then produce a structured hindsight report covering the following: 1. **Identify genuine process failures, not just outcomes.** For each meaningful mistake, inefficiency, or round of back-and-forth correction, name the root cause, not the surface symptom. If something took multiple attempts to get right, ask what specifically caused each failed attempt, and whether a single upstream fix (a question asked earlier, a check performed differently, a different verification method) would have prevented the whole chain. Distinguish between mistakes that were reasonable given the information available at the time, and mistakes that came from skipping a step, assuming instead of asking, or verifying the wrong thing. 2. **Separate durable lessons from one-off noise.** A lesson is worth keeping only if it would change how a future task gets handled, not just this one. Discard anything that's purely specific to this session's content and has no bearing on method or process going forward. For each lesson that survives that filter, state it as a concrete, actionable rule, not a vague sentiment like "be more careful." Say precisely what should happen differently: what question should be asked, at what point, or what check should be performed, and why the check that was actually used wasn't sufficient. 3. **Verify claims before writing them down.** If a lesson references specific behavior, a tool's output, a file, or a technical constraint, confirm it against what actually happened in this session rather than reconstructing it from memory. Don't generalize from a single data point into a universal rule. Note when something might be a one-time fluke versus a confirmed, repeatable pattern (e.g., something that failed identically on a second attempt is a stronger signal than something that failed once). 4. **Before saving any lesson, ask explicitly: did this session prove it, or only suggest it?** "Proved" means the same failure happened more than once, the root cause was actually confirmed against real evidence (a tool's output, a file's contents, a technical constraint you checked), or a fix was verified to work. "Suggested" means it happened once, reads as plausible, but wasn't independently confirmed: a reasonable guess, not a demonstrated fact. This is a distinct check from Step 3's fact-verification: a claim can be accurately quoted from this session and still only be suggestive of a broader rule, not proof of one. - A proved lesson gets persisted as a firm rule. - A merely-suggested lesson does not get persisted as settled fact. Either hold it out of memory and name it in the final report as a watch-item pending a second occurrence, or persist it with the uncertainty stated plainly in the entry itself (e.g. "seen once, not yet confirmed as a pattern"). Never write a single-occurrence guess as an unqualified rule. - If it's genuinely unclear which bucket a lesson falls into and the user is available, ask them rather than deciding unilaterally. 5. **Persist the lessons, don't just narrate them.** If a persistent memory or notes system is available, write each surviving lesson into it as a discrete, well-labeled entry. Check first whether an existing note already covers the same topic and update it in place rather than creating a near-duplicate. If no persistent memory system exists, produce the hindsight report as a clearly organized, standalone document the user can save themselves, written so it remains useful without the original conversation as context. 6. **Keep the scope honest.** A handful of well-reasoned, specific lessons is more useful than a long list of shallow ones. If a session genuinely went well with nothing worth changing, say so plainly rather than manufacturing findings to fill space. If real infrastructure or environment constraints were discovered (a tool that doesn't work as documented, a permission that's more restrictive than expected, a connector that failed to connect), record those as factual findings distinct from process lessons about how the work itself was approached. 7. **Report back concisely.** After persisting or writing up the hindsight report, summarize for the user in a few short sections what was learned and what will change: not a restatement of the whole session, just the lessons and their practical effect on future work. Flag any watch-items held back per Step 4 explicitly, so they don't just silently disappear. ## In this environment Check whether a persistent memory system is actually available before assuming Step 5's fallback. Most agent harnesses that have one expose it distinctly from ordinary project files: - **Claude Code** keeps per-project memory under `~/.claude/projects//memory/` (the slug is derived from the project's working-directory path: different per project, not a fixed path), one markdown file per fact, each with `name`/`description`/ `metadata.type` frontmatter. `type: feedback` fits nearly every hindsight lesson: it's guidance on how to work, with a why. That same folder's `MEMORY.md` is the index loaded into every session. - **Not every lesson is a memory fact.** A correction that must hold every time is a hook or rule, installed through onboard-repo Phase 4b. A durable fact about the repo itself is a wiki page, through write-wiki. A lesson about how to work with this user or project is memory, here. - **Whatever the mechanism, the same rule applies:** read the index or browse existing entries first, to find one that already covers the lesson's topic. Existing topic → edit that file (append a dated addendum or finding, matching its existing structure) rather than creating a new one. New topic → new atomic file, one fact per file, cross-linked to related entries if the system supports it. - Every new or newly-relevant file needs a matching entry added to whatever serves as the index: a memory nothing points to is easy to miss next session. - If no such system exists in the current environment, fall back to Step 5's standalone-document path: write the hindsight report as one self-contained file the user can save wherever they keep notes. ## Definition of done - Every persisted lesson traces to a real, specific event from this session, not a generic best practice restated. - Every persisted lesson was explicitly checked against Step 4: proved lessons are stated as firm rules; merely-suggested ones are either held as a reported watch-item or persisted with the uncertainty stated plainly. Nothing single-occurrence is written as an unqualified rule. - Nothing written duplicates an existing memory's topic; existing entries were checked and updated in place where one already applied. - The memory index (or equivalent) reflects every new file. - The final report to the user is a few short sections, not a full session recap: lessons and their practical effect, nothing else. - If nothing genuinely durable came up, the report says so plainly instead of manufacturing filler. ## Scope boundary This skill does not redo, re-verify, or re-open any task from the session: it only reviews and reports on work already done. It does not edit project code or content as part of running; its only writes are to memory (and the memory index).