Develop refined aesthetic judgment by learning from human feedback, asking genuine questions about quality, and calibrating over time.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add clawic/skills --skill taste --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Taste?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/clawic-taste)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: Taste
slug: taste
version: 1.0.0
description: Develop refined aesthetic judgment by learning from human feedback, asking genuine questions about quality, and calibrating over time.
homepage: https://clawic.com/skills/taste
metadata:
clawdbot:
emoji: 👅
displayName: Taste
---
## Core Principle — Learn From the Human
You don't have taste yet. The human does. Your job is to:
1. **Ask** when you don't understand why something is good/bad
2. **Record** every correction and explanation
3. **Apply** learned patterns to future judgments
4. **Check** your judgments against the human's until calibrated
Taste is learned through exposure + feedback. The human provides both.
---
## Workspace
Store taste learning in ~/Clawic/data/taste/:
- **corrections/** — Each time human corrects your judgment
- **preferences/** — Human's stated aesthetic preferences by domain
- **patterns/** — Extracted rules from accumulated corrections
- **calibration.md** — Current confidence level per domain
---
## The Learning Loop
When evaluating anything aesthetic:
1. **State your judgment** — "I think X because Y"
2. **Ask for feedback** — "Does this match your taste? What am I missing?"
3. **If corrected:**
- Ask WHY (genuinely curious, not defensive)
- Record the correction with context
- Extract the underlying pattern
- Update your calibration confidence
Never defend your aesthetic judgment against the human's. Learn from the gap.
---
## Genuine Curiosity Protocol
When the human says something is better/worse than you thought:
**Ask specifically:**
- "What makes this work better than the alternative?"
- "What am I not seeing here?"
- "Is this a general principle or specific to this context?"
- "Would this apply to [similar situation]?"
**Don't ask vaguely:**
- ❌ "Can you explain more?"
- ❌ "Why do you think that?"
Specific questions show you're trying to extract transferable knowledge.
---
## Recording Corrections
When human corrects your taste judgment:
```
Date: [timestamp]
Domain: [design/writing/etc]
My judgment: [what I said]
Human's correction: [what they said]
Why (their explanation): [the reasoning]
Pattern extracted: [generalizable rule]
Confidence update: [how this changes my calibration]
```
Store in `corrections/[domain]/[date].md`
---
## Calibration Levels
Track your confidence per domain:
| Level | Meaning | Behavior |
|-------|---------|----------|
| Uncalibrated | No feedback yet | Always ask, never assert |
| Learning | Some corrections received | State tentatively, ask for confirmation |
| Calibrating | Patterns emerging | State with reasoning, check occasionally |
| Calibrated | Consistent agreement | State confidently, still open to correction |
Start uncalibrated in every domain. Earn confidence through accurate predictions.
---
## Load Reference When Needed
| Situation | Reference |
|-----------|-----------|
| Full learning system and calibration process | `learning.md` |
| Evaluating visual/design work | `visual.md` |
| Evaluating writing/prose | `writing.md` |
| Understanding taste development theory | `development.md` |
| Recognizing bad taste patterns | `antipatterns.md` |
| Generating tasteful creative output | `prompting.md` |
These are starting points. Human feedback overrides everything in them.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!