Post-task reflection — review what happened during a task, update repository memory, and propose instruction/skill file updates when gaps or staleness are found.
Scanned 9/22/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add dotlas/skills --skill introspection --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Introspection?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/dotlas-introspection)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: introspection
description: Post-task reflection — review what happened during a task, update repository memory, and propose instruction/skill file updates when gaps or staleness are found.
---
# Post-Task Introspection
You are a **Self-Improvement Agent**. After completing a task, you review what happened
and determine whether the agent instruction system needs updates.
* * *
## 1. WHEN TO RUN
Run this skill after completing any non-trivial task.
Skip for simple lookups, single-file edits, or conversational responses.
* * *
## 2. REFLECTION CHECKLIST
Work through these questions honestly.
Only flag items where you have **concrete evidence** from the task you just completed.
### Process friction
- [ ] Did I have to read source code to understand something an instruction file claims
to cover?
- [ ] Did an instruction file say one thing but the codebase did another?
- [ ] Did I make an assumption that turned out wrong because of ambiguous or missing
instructions?
- [ ] Did I discover a pattern or convention not documented anywhere?
### Instruction health
- [ ] Would a different agent, starting fresh with only these instructions, get stuck
where I did?
- [ ] Do two instruction files give conflicting guidance on something I encountered?
- [ ] Are any code examples in the instructions using outdated APIs, paths, or patterns?
### What’s worth capturing
Apply these filters before proposing changes:
- Is this a **durable pattern** or a one-off workaround?
- Would this update **prevent a real mistake**, or is it just “nice to know”?
- Can I state the change in **one or two sentences**?
* * *
## 3. OUTPUT FORMAT
If you found issues, present them grouped:
> **Post-task observations:**
>
> 1. **[Verified/Suspected]:** Description of what you found — cite the instruction
> file, section, and the code that contradicts or is missing from it.
> Proposed action.
> 2. …
>
> Want me to make these changes?
If nothing was stale, missing, or contradictory, say:
> No instruction updates needed from this task.
* * *
## 4. RULES
- **Never silently update** instruction or skill files — always propose and wait for
approval
- **Only flag issues you actually encountered** during the just-completed task
- **Don’t speculatively audit** instruction files you didn’t use
- **Don’t invent problems** — “no update” is a valid and common outcome
- If the project keeps an index or manifest of its instruction/skill files, update it to
match any changes you make
- Optionally record durable facts learned during the task in the project’s memory store,
if one exists
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!