reflect

Reflect

Success Criteria

• Every mistake/friction point cites the specific moment and its impact
• Findings state the reviewed evidence's limits; missing observations do not establish success or complete coverage
• Improvements are actionable and prioritized (cap defined in step 4)
• Each skill audit proposes measurable changes (not vague suggestions)
• Memory persistence follows existing authorization, or the user selects concrete proposed items before any write
• If review activity occurred, review-trap candidates are reported; persist only with authorization, or explicitly report no candidates

Process

1. Session Review

Scan the available conversation and relevant artifacts. State any missing or truncated evidence and the scope actually reviewed. For each finding, cite the specific exchange or artifact (quote or paraphrase) and its impact. Do not infer a clean session from gaps in the record.

Skip one-time typos, external tool failures, and issues outside agent control.

Before proposing durable guidance from inferred behavior, apply the recurrence gate and exceptions in capture-and-routing.md.

2. Review Activity Scan (if applicable)

Collect candidates in the response. A retrospective alone does not authorize memory writes or skill edits; apply only changes already authorized by the user or approved in steps 4 and 5.

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? Propose a one-line memory candidate for step 4.
• 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.