he-learn

Hard Eng Learn

• Input = current task + observed attempts/results or explicit decision/steering. Reuse its authorization + participation mode. Hook checkpoints request this judgment; they do not establish recurrence, a cause, or permission to change other projects/global memory.
• Outcome = verified prevention at its narrowest owner, an applicable decision record, or an explicit no-op/blocker. Keep proof + pending work in the same plan; no learning ledger or new task status. Existing tests/docs that already preserve the lesson need no duplicate record.

flowchart TD
  E[Current evidence] --> T{What changed?}
  T -->|Repeated failure| R[Research: confirm common cause]
  T -->|Lasting decision or steering| A[Decision capture]
  T -->|No durable gap| N[Continue without new files]
  R --> P[Repair cause and existing deterministic prevention]
  P --> L{Adequate executable prevention?}
  L -->|Yes| V[Original failure + nearby valid case]
  L -->|No; limitation demonstrated| S[Writing Great Skills: smallest procedural repair]
  S --> V
  A --> U[Check authority, applicability and future retrieval]
  V --> U
  U --> D[Record actual result; resume current stage]
  click R "../research/references/troubleshooting.md"
  click A "references/decisions.md"
  click S "../writing-great-skills/SKILL.md"
  click V "../he/references/testing.md"

Repeated failure → prevention

• Recurrence = as defined in troubleshooting, including its distinguishing evidence before another similar retry. A first confirmed false-pass/protected-boundary defect still warrants immediate repair through its current owner.
• Preference = remove the cause → repair existing invariant/type/test/checker/lint/hook/CI → add the smallest missing deterministic check. Reuse project-native tools. A new script needs repeated fragile logic or a required boundary existing commands cannot check; no checker per incident.
• Proof = the real violating case must fail before repair and pass after it; a nearby valid case must remain valid. Put the check where recurrence would be caught, retain required gates, and name coverage limits. Do not weaken a check or turn a passing command into proof without inspecting its result.
• Skill = last resort for the part executable prevention cannot adequately cover. State that limitation from evidence; reuse/repair an existing skill before adding one. Follow Writing Great Skills, including its repair route. Canonical location = .agents/skills/<name>/SKILL.md; only needed references/scripts belong beside it.
• Behavioral proof = exercise the original request + nearby valid/non-trigger case. Material trigger, authority, action-order or completion changes need actual agent execution; a wording/metadata check alone is insufficient. Verify the future consumer reaches the rule when relevant. Failed/unknown proof stays unfinished; never promise universal non-recurrence.