Skill: iliaal/compound-eng-reflect (version 3.0.5)

--- name: ia-reflect class: tool description: >- Session retrospective and skill audit. Use when asked to reflect, do a retrospective, review lessons learned, audit what went well or wrong, or review session effectiveness. --- # Reflect ## Success Criteria - Every mistake/friction point cites the specific moment and its impact - Improvements are actionable and prioritized (cap defined in step 4) - Each skill audit proposes measurable changes (not vague suggestions) - User is asked which items to persist to memory - If review activity occurred, review-trap patterns are captured to persistent memory, or explicitly marked as "none" ## Process ### 1. Session Review Scan the full conversation. For each finding, cite the specific exchange (quote or paraphrase) and its impact. | Category | Signal | |----------|--------| | **Mistakes** | Wrong outputs, incorrect assumptions, hallucinated facts | | **Friction** | Repeated clarifications, verbose responses, misread intent | | **Wasted effort** | Work discarded, wrong approaches tried first | | **Wins** | Approaches worth repeating, smooth interactions | Skip one-time typos, external tool failures, and issues outside agent control. ### 2. Review Activity Scan (if applicable) If the session included PR or MR review activity in either direction, run this scan before moving on. Skip only if no reviews happened. **Inbound (my code was reviewed):** For each review comment received: - Did I accept it? If yes, what pattern did the reviewer catch that I missed? Is it a recurring blind spot? Capture the one-liner to persistent memory. - Did I push back? If I was right and the reviewer was wrong, nothing to capture. If I was wrong and had to retract mid-thread, capture what I learned. **Outbound (I reviewed someone else's code):** For each comment I authored: - Was it accepted? Nothing to capture -- good call. - Was it rejected with a valid counter? That's a review trap. Capture the pattern: what heuristic did I apply that produced a wrong comment? "No harvestable items" is a valid outcome -- say so explicitly. Don't let the step quietly drop off. ### 3. Operational Learnings Before listing improvements, scan the session for operational insights worth preserving. Apply the 5-minute filter: would knowing this save 5+ minutes in a future session? If yes, include it. Examples: a project-specific quirk, a command that failed unexpectedly, an approach that worked better than expected. ### 4. Improvements Numbered list of **concrete improvements**, ranked by impact. Each item: one sentence, imperative, actionable. Cap at 10 items: if more surface, the bottom items are noise -- drop them rather than batching or splitting. Ask: *"Which of these should I remember for future chats?"* Save approved items to memory files at `~/.claude/projects/<project-slug>/memory/` (replace `<project-slug>` with the slug matching the current working directory, e.g., [REDACTED_SECRET]) using the Write tool with proper frontmatter (see MEMORY.md index). ### 5. Skill Audit (if skills were used) For each skill invoked during the session: **A. Self-check gate** -- If the skill lacks success criteria + verification loop: - Add `## Success Criteria` at top (3-5 measurable checks) - Add `## Self-Check` at bottom: "Verify all success criteria are met before presenting output. If not, iterate (max 5 times)." **B. Token efficiency** -- Flag: redundant phrasing, mergeable sections, oversized examples, "Claude already knows this" content, inert frontmatter metadata. **C. Other** -- Missing edge cases, vague directives (rewrite as measurable criteria or remove), naked negations (add "do Y instead" or remove). Present proposed changes as diffs. Ask: *"Apply these? (all / pick / skip)"* ### 6. Capture Markers **The `remember:` prefix** is the highest-confidence capture signal. When the user writes a message beginning with `remember:`, treat everything after the colon as a memory candidate — no interpretation required. Save directly to the appropriate memory file with a one-line summary and the user's exact phrasing. Example: `remember: we never use Pest, always PHPUnit` → save to `feedback_phpunit_over_pest.md`. **Correction patterns to watch for** (lower-confidence, batch these for review at `/ia-reflect` time): - "no, use X" / "actually, X" / "don't use Y, use X" - "stop doing X" / "never X" - "that's wrong — the right way is..." - repeated clarifications of the same thing within a session **Optional capture hook**: a `UserPromptSubmit` hook can pattern-match the markers above into `~/.claude/learnings-queue.json` as the user types, so `/ia-reflect` processes the queue deterministically instead of re-scanning the full transcript. Not shipped with this skill; document the convention and leave implementation to users who need it. ### 7. Pattern Detection If 2+ similar tasks appear that no existing skill covers, suggest a new skill (1-2 sentence description). Create only after confirmation. **Proactive trigger:** When the user corrects you, clarifies the same thing twice, or shows frustration, append: "Tip: Type `/ia-reflect` when you're ready -- I'll review what we can improve." ## Self-Check Before presenting output, verify all success criteria are met. If any fail, revise (max 5 iterations).


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (MEDIUM)