workflow-reflection

The final stage of a software development workflow, focused on recording lessons, moving temporary records, closing tracking issues, and preparing the branch for merging. A branch is a separate line of code changes.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review the whole workflow, write a structured reflection, move architecture decisions, close issues, update claims, and prepare or mark the branch ready for merge.
Why use it?
It turns completed work into a clean, documented result and makes sure earlier workflow records and decisions are properly finalized.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/kastalien-research/thoughtbox/workflow-reflection
Any agent
npx skills add Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox --skill workflow-reflection
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 33 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,370 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00033 $0.01370
Opus 5 $0.00016 $0.00685
Sonnet 5 $0.00007 $0.00274
Haiku 4.5 $0.00003 $0.00137

Measured 3d ago against content hash 9b6952b49100, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

workflow-reflection scanned grade A with 0 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 3d 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.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

.agents/skills/workflow-reflection/SKILL.md · 185 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 185 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Execute the reflection and finalization stage. $ARGUMENTS

Purpose

You are executing Stage 8 (Reflection) of the development workflow. The implementation is reviewed, revised, and compounded. Your job is to finalize: reflect on what happened, move artifacts to their permanent locations, close tracking issues, and prepare the branch for merge.

Pre-Conditions

Before starting, verify:

  1. .workflow/state.json exists and currentStage is "reflection"
  2. Stages 1-7 are all completed or skipped (check state file)
  3. All sub-agent work has been committed (no uncommitted implementation changes)

Process

Step 1: Agent Structured Reflection

Review the entire workflow by reading the state file and any persisted summaries. Produce a structured reflection:

WORKFLOW REFLECTION
====================

Workflow: <id> - <title>
Branch: <branch>
Duration: <startedAt> to now

## What Worked
- [specific things that went well, with evidence]
- [approaches that should be repeated]

## What Didn't Work
- [specific things that went poorly, with evidence]
- [approaches to avoid in future]

## Hypothesis Outcomes
- H1 "<text>": VALIDATED / REFUTED / INCONCLUSIVE
- H2 "<text>": ...

## Revision Iterations
- Total: N/3
- Root causes of revision: [what triggered each iteration]

## Unexpected Discoveries
- [things learned that weren't part of the original plan]
- [codebase behaviors that surprised us]

## Process Improvements
- [suggestions for improving the workflow itself]

Step 2: User Reflection (Optional)

Ask the user if they want to add their own reflection:

Would you like to add your own reflection notes?
This is optional but valuable for the compound learning record.

If the user provides input, append it to the reflection under a ## Chief Agentic Notes section.

Step 3: Move ADR to Permanent Location

Based on the workflow outcome:

If hypotheses were validated (happy path):

  1. Move the spec with frontmatter to accepted:
    # Historical: ADRs archived — update spec status in frontmatter instead of mv .adr/<NNN>-<name>-adr.md .adr/accepted/<NNN>-<name>.md
    
  2. Move associated summaries with it:
    # Historical: ADRs archived — update spec status in frontmatter instead of mv .adr/<NNN>-<name>-summary-*.md .adr/accepted/
    
  3. If the spec was in staging, move it to specs/
  4. If any existing docs in specs/ or docs/decisions/archive/adr/accepted/ are now outdated by this work, update them

Read the full file on GitHub · 185 lines

Changes

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.

  1. 3d ago First seen · 185 lines · 33 tokens per session scan A 9b6952b49100

Subscribe to this mod's changes

workflow-reflection is a skill published in the GitHub repository Kastalien-Research/thoughtbox (64 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 33 tokens to every session and 1,370 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

reasoning

Use BEFORE answering analytical, diagnostic, planning, or multi-step reasoning questions. Trigger phrases include "should I X or Y", "why is X happening", "what's the best approach", "what are the tradeoffs", "help me think through", "diagnose", "root cause", "plan/design X", "what are the implications of", "compare…

ejentum/ejentum-mcp · 186 tokens

xcodebuildmcp-structured-output-review

Use when reviewing XcodeBuildMCP structured output schema changes, schema versioning, manifest outputSchema metadata, and JSON fixture compatibility.

getsentry/XcodeBuildMCP · 37 tokens

opik-diagnose

Surface the Opik traces worth a developer's attention, ranked by signal — errors, failed tool calls, latency, regressions, and low online-eval scores — plus Diagnostics issues. Reads live/production traces via the SDK (searchtraces and agentinsights) and works with no MCP; uses the MCP issue entity when connected.…

comet-ml/opik-mcp · 147 tokens

cortex-automate

Set up automation — prospective memory triggers, neuro-symbolic rules, and CLAUDE.md sync. Use when the user says 'remind me when', 'trigger when', 'create a rule', 'auto-remember', 'sync to CLAUDE.md', 'push insights', 'set up trigger', 'when I open this file', 'when this keyword appears', or when you want to…

cdeust/Cortex · 93 tokens

tabnexus-mcp-evals

Generate, validate, and run isolated Codex-to-TabNexus MCP evaluations with a curated 600-query dataset, executable gold tool labels, safety checks, and best-of-three stability scoring. Use when testing TabNexus MCP tool coverage, Agent behavior, regression quality, destructive-action safety, prompt changes, or a…

KaichenCurry/TabNexus · 75 tokens

compare

Structured comparison of 2+ alternatives with consistent criteria and decision matrix.

n24q02m/wet-mcp · 15 tokens