Close the gap between a correction and it happening again.
“I keep correcting the same thing in sessions. How do I make the correction stick?”
Scans a session for corrections, approvals, and validated patterns, then proposes exact edits to your skills and docs. Nothing applied until you approve.
What this skill does
Reads back over a session and turns feedback into durable improvement. It finds where you corrected the work, where you approved it, and where a pattern proved itself more than once, then proposes exact edits to the skills, playbooks, or docs that produced the work. A correction you make twice is a rule you never wrote down. This writes it down, and shows it to you before anything changes.
Inputs
- Works today with: the session, the corrections and approvals in it, or a transcript you paste. It proposes the updates from that.
- More powerful connected to a repo: it finds the actual skill or doc file the update belongs in and drafts the diff.
- Sharper with a notes or wiki tool: it can point proposed edits at the living playbook, not a copy.
- Sharper with a decision log: it links each accepted change to the decision that justified it.
How it works
- 1Session scan
Walk the session for three signals: corrections (you told it to do something differently), approvals (you confirmed something was right), and patterns (the same choice held up more than once). Everything downstream is anchored to a real moment in the session, quoted, not inferred.
- 2High-confidence corrections
An explicit correction is high-confidence. You said "no, do it this way." That becomes a proposed edit stated plainly, with the before, the after, and the exact spot it changes. These are the sure things, and they are listed first.
- 3Medium-confidence patterns
A pattern that repeated but was never confirmed is medium-confidence. It is proposed as a question, "you did X twice, should this be the default?", not asserted as a rule. Medium items never get promoted to high on their own.
- 4Proposed edits, file by file
Each accepted signal maps to one target and one concrete change. It shows what the doc says now and what it would say. If a repo is connected, it drafts the diff. If not, it hands you the exact text to paste.
- 5The approval gate
Nothing is written. Every proposed edit is presented for a yes or no, one at a time. You can accept the corrections and defer the patterns, or the reverse. The loop closes only on what you approve.
Output format
CLOSED LOOP · onboarding-automation session · 3 signals found
HIGH CONFIDENCE (explicit corrections)
1. You corrected: "route by company size, not persona."
Target: the routing playbook, step 2.
Now: "Assign owner by persona match."
To: "Assign owner by company size band."
[ ] Apply [ ] Skip
MEDIUM CONFIDENCE (patterns, unconfirmed)
2. You batched the job nightly twice this week without being asked.
Should "nightly, not real-time" become the default in the SOP?
[ ] Make it a rule [ ] Leave as a one-off [ ] Ask me later
DO THIS FIRST
Apply #1. It is an explicit correction and it changes live routing.
(nothing above is written until you choose)
Tips
- Nothing is written, committed, or deleted without your explicit approval, per edit. AUTO_APPLY is off and stays off.
- Every proposed update quotes the moment in the session that justifies it. No update without evidence.
- High-confidence and medium-confidence are never blended. A guess is labelled a guess.
- A pattern is never silently promoted to a rule. It stays a question until you answer it.
Turn a cold start into a warm one with one doc.
A single pack that tells a new session or teammate what the project is, where things live, what's decided, and the next move.
Capture the session context so you can resume it cold.
An end-of-session brief: progress, decisions, unfinished items with next steps, and the fragile details, then it asks whether to save.