Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to incubateur-ademe/benefriches. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/incubateur-ademe/benefriches/main/.claude/skills/reflect/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/incubateur-ademe/benefrichesWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/incubateur-ademe/benefriches/reflect)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/incubateur-ademe/benefriches/reflect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/incubateur-ademe/benefriches/reflect/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/incubateur-ademe/benefriches/reflect"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/incubateur-ademe/benefriches/reflect.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00087 | $0.01615 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00044 | $0.00807 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00323 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00161 |
Grade C, and why
reflect scanned grade C with 2 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Reads agent configuration directoriesmediumAgent snooping
.claude/, .codex/, .gemini/ hold keys, settings and other credentials a mod has no legitimate need for.
description: Reflect on the current session to find mistakes, user corrections, ambiguous instructions, and failures — then propose durable root-cause fixes to the project's instruction docs (CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules, .c Enumerates other installed skillsmediumAgent snooping
Other skills' SKILL.md files reveal prompts, capabilities and secrets that should be invisible to peers.
description: Reflect on the current session to find mistakes, user corrections, ambiguous instructions, and failures — then propose durable root-cause fixes to the project's instruction docs (CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules, .c How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 136 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Reflect - Session Self-Improvement
Reflect on the current session and propose durable, root-cause fixes to the project's
instruction surface (CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules/*, .claude/skills/*) so the mistakes,
misunderstandings, or ambiguous instructions that occurred don't recur.
Bias toward the opposite of a point fix: when something went wrong, the interesting output is not "fix this file" but "which instruction doc was ambiguous / missing / mis-scoped such that a careful agent got it wrong — and how should that doc be reworded?"
This is deliberately different from revise-claude-md:
- Signal philosophy: anchored on externally-observable failure signals (corrections, doc-misreads, failing commands, loops) — never open-ended "what could I have done better" introspection. Unaided self-critique of otherwise-correct work degrades quality; don't do it.
- Target surface: the full instruction surface (
CLAUDE.md+ rules + skills), not justCLAUDE.md. - Fix type: biased toward editing the ambiguous line that misled you, not just appending newly-discovered commands/gotchas.
Step 1 — Detect
Scan the in-context conversation for observable failure/friction signals only:
- Explicit user correction/redirect — "no, do X instead", "actually…", "that's not what I meant", "why did you…", reverting a decision. Highest-precision signal.
- Ambiguous instruction that misled — a rule/CLAUDE.md/skill line was followed literally but wrongly; the guidance admitted a wrong reading.
- Tool/test/build/lint failure caused by you — non-zero exits, failing typecheck/lint/ test/build traceable to your own change.
- Loop / repeated retry — you tried the same thing multiple times, thrashed, or went in circles before it worked.
- Revert —
git revert/git checkout --/ undo of your own work.
For each signal found, extract an evidence bundle: the exact quoted turn(s) or command(s) that prove it happened.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 136 lines · 87 tokens per session scan C daafe858fc58
reflect is a skill published in the GitHub repository incubateur-ademe/benefriches (45 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 87 tokens to every session and 1,615 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it C with 2 findings (reads agent configuration directories, enumerates other installed skills). No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.
agent-teams-simplify-and-harden
Implementation + audit loop using parallel agent teams with structured simplify, harden, and document passes. Spawns implementation agents to do the work, then audit agents to find complexity, security gaps, and spec deviations, then loops until code compiles cleanly, all tests pass, and auditors find zero issues or…