Deep self-analysis pipeline: collects session/rule/usage data, analyzes across 5 dimensions (strength-shadow + Analogia grounding), produces HTML report. User-invoked via /introspect.
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill introspect --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Introspect?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jongwony-introspect)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: introspect
description: "Deep self-analysis pipeline: collects session/rule/usage data, analyzes across 5 dimensions (strength-shadow + Analogia grounding), produces HTML report. User-invoked via /introspect."
---
# Introspect
A self-analysis pipeline that collects behavioral context, identifies patterns, and produces
actionable insights as an HTML report. The pipeline has 4 phases, each building on the previous.
## Pipeline Overview
| Phase | What | Mode | Output |
|-------|------|------|--------|
| 1. Collect | Gather data from 4 sources | 3 parallel inline Task invocations | Raw findings |
| 2. Analyze | Synthesize into profile | AI + user dialogue | Strengths, costs, conflicts |
| 3. Ground | Map to philosophical frameworks | Optional Analogia | Validated mapping |
| 4. Report | Generate HTML report | Automated | `.html` file |
If the user provides a specific question (e.g., "What are my curses?"), orient the analysis
toward answering that question rather than producing a generic profile.
---
## Phase 1: Data Collection
Launch 3 parallel ad-hoc inline Task(general-purpose) invocations. These are not pre-registered
agent files — each is an inline prompt task launched for this pipeline only. Each collects from
different sources and returns structured findings.
All prompts are English per delegation rules; search keywords in quotes are exempt.
### Agent 1: Rules & Configuration
```
PURPOSE: Extract the user's explicitly stated preferences and constraints from their
Claude Code configuration.
Paths below written `{config_dir}/…` take `{config_dir}` = `CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR` when set, else `~/.claude`. Resolve it ONCE per invocation with Bash `printf '%s\n' "${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR-$HOME/.claude}"` and substitute the absolute result before any Read/Glob/Grep call.
COLLECT:
1. Read {config_dir}/CLAUDE.md — extract all stated preferences, principles, and constraints
2. Read all files in {config_dir}/rules/ — extract each rule with its rationale
3. Read {config_dir}/projects/*/memory/MEMORY.md — extract persistent session memory
RETURN FORMAT:
## Stated Preferences
- [preference]: [source file]
## Constraints & Boundaries
- [constraint]: [source file]
## Rule Inventory
- Total rules: N
- Categories: [list]
- Potential redundancies: [if any rules overlap or subsume others]
## Memory Highlights
- [key patterns from session memory]
```
### Agent 2: Usage Patterns (Quantitative)
```
PURPOSE: Extract quantitative behavioral patterns from usage data.
Paths below written {config_dir}/… take {config_dir} = CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR when set, else ~/.claude. Resolve it ONCE per invocation with Bash `printf '%s\n' "${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR-$HOME/.claude}"` and substitute the absolute result before any Read/Glob/Grep call.
COLLECT:
1. Read {config_dir}/usage-data/report.html — extract key statistics (messages, tools,
friction types, outcomes, satisfaction, session types)
2. Sample 5-10 facet files from {config_dir}/usage-data/facets/ — extract
recurring themes, tool usage patterns, satisfaction signals
3. Sample 5-10 session-meta files from {config_dir}/usage-data/session-meta/ —
extract session types, durations, goal patterns
RETURN FORMAT:
## Quantitative Profile
- Messages: N across M sessions
- Top tools: [ranked list]
- Top goals: [ranked list]
- Outcome distribution: [fully/mostly/partially/not achieved]
## Behavioral Signals
- Session type distribution: [multi-task, iterative, single, exploration]
- Friction patterns: [top 3 with counts]
- Satisfaction distribution
## Notable Patterns
- [3-5 patterns that stand out from the quantitative data]
```
### Agent 3: Session Behavior (Qualitative)
```
PURPOSE: Extract qualitative behavioral patterns from recent session transcripts.
Paths below written {config_dir}/… take {config_dir} = CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR when set, else ~/.claude. Resolve it ONCE per invocation with Bash `printf '%s\n' "${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR-$HOME/.claude}"` and substitute the absolute result before any Read/Glob/Grep call.
COLLECT:
1. List session files in {config_dir}/projects/ (find recent, large sessions)
2. Sample 3-5 substantive sessions (>50KB) — use Grep to extract:
- User correction patterns (interruptions, redirections)
- Decision-making patterns (how user makes choices)
- Protocol usage patterns (which epistemic protocols, how often)
- Communication style (directive, collaborative, exploratory)
NOTE: COLLECT operates on session transcripts and protocol patterns only — cross-reference to user-personal analysis artifacts (curated insight files) is intentionally out of scope; the analysis remains substrate-agnostic and reproducible across users.
RETURN FORMAT:
## Interaction Style
- [3-5 observed patterns with session evidence]
## Decision Patterns
- [how the user approaches decisions, with examples]
## Correction Patterns
- [what the user corrects most often, what triggers corrections]
## Protocol/Tool Preferences
- [which tools/protocols are preferred and when]
```
---
## Phase 2: Pattern Analysis
After all 3 agents return, synthesize findings across 5 dimensions.
### 5-Dimension Framework
Analyze each dimension by cross-referencing data from all 3 agents:
| Dimension | What to look for | Sources |
|-----------|-----------------|---------|
| **Communication Style** | Directive vs collaborative, interruption patterns, feedback style | Agent 1 (rules), Agent 3 (sessions) |
| **Technical Preferences** | Tool choices, language preferences, architecture patterns | Agent 1 (rules), Agent 2 (usage) |
| **Cognitive/Decision Patterns** | Verification depth, risk tolerance, abstraction appetite | Agent 2 (friction), Agent 3 (decisions) |
| **Domain/Context** | Primary work areas, domain switching patterns | Agent 2 (goals), Agent 3 (sessions) |
| **Premise** | Core values, what drives engagement, what causes frustration | All agents |
### Strength-Shadow Analysis
For each strength identified, find its structural cost (the "shadow"):
```
Pattern: [observed strength]
Evidence: [specific data from agents]
Shadow: [structural cost that comes with this strength]
Mechanism: [why the strength produces this specific cost]
```
The key insight: every strength has a shadow, and the shadows often share a common
structure (precision creates new complexity, optimization creates blind spots).
### Conflict Surface
Compare descriptive patterns (what the user actually does, from Agent 2/3) against
prescriptive rules (what the user says to do, from Agent 1). Surface mismatches:
- Rules that the user's own behavior contradicts
- Patterns not captured by any rule
- Rules that may be redundant or subsumable
Present the analysis as text output (strengths, shadows, conflict surface) and
proceed to Phase 3 directly — Phase 1 evidence already establishes pattern existence,
so pre-validation is Extension-eligible for relay-eligible findings. End the Phase 2
output with a visible red-line discovery line so the correction pathway is explicit:
"If any pattern seems misclassified or rules need adjusting, say so — I'll re-derive
from there." Conflict-surface synthesis (rules the user contradicts, redundant rules)
involves intent inference (deliberate exception vs drift), so the discovery line is
required to surface this constitutive layer without a full pre-validation gate. The
user may red-line via free response at any subsequent turn (refine, correct, dismiss
a pattern, or add context); when that happens, regenerate affected downstream
sections on the next turn.
---
## Phase 3: Philosophical Grounding
Map identified patterns to philosophical frameworks, giving the user a conceptual
vocabulary for understanding their cognitive style.
### When to activate
Always offer this phase. If the user accepts, invoke `/analogia:ground` with the key
findings as the grounding target. The Analogia protocol handles mapping validation
through user dialogue.
### Mapping candidates
Common correspondences to consider (not exhaustive):
| Pattern | Candidate frameworks |
|---------|---------------------|
| UU exploration preference | Popper (Critical Rationalism), Peirce (Abduction) |
| AI delegation strategy | Clark & Chalmers (Extended Mind), Ricardo (Comparative Advantage) |
| Openness to new problems | Zen Beginner's Mind, Socratic questioning |
| Verification depth | Aristotelian phronesis, Cartesian doubt |
| System building tendency | Kantian architectonic, Systems thinking |
The Analogia process may refine or reject these candidates. User counter-arguments
are often the most valuable part — as when "curse" was reframed as "strategy"
through an AI-delegation counter-hypothesis.
---
## Phase 4: Report Generation
Paths below written `{config_dir}/…` take `{config_dir}` = `CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR` when set, else `~/.claude`. Resolve it ONCE per invocation with Bash `printf '%s\n' "${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR-$HOME/.claude}"` and substitute the absolute result before any Read/Glob/Grep call.
Generate an HTML report and save to `{config_dir}/epistemic-cooperative/introspect/`.
### Design System
Read the existing `{config_dir}/usage-data/report.html` to extract the CSS design system.
Match its visual style: Inter font, #f8fafc background, white cards with #e2e8f0 border.
See `references/report-guide.md` for section templates and component patterns.
### Required Sections
1. **At a Glance** — 4-bullet summary (identity, strengths, costs, recommendations)
2. **Philosophical Identity** — 2x2 grid of philosophy cards (if Phase 3 completed)
3. **Division of Labor** — Human-AI role visualization (if applicable)
4. **Strengths** — Green cards with evidence and source dimension tag
5. **Structural Costs** — White cards with severity badge and mitigation strategy
6. **Attitude Recommendations** — Gradient cards, ranked by ROI
7. **Practice Matrix** — Table mapping situations to principles and actions
8. **Extended Mind Health** — Green/yellow/red indicators for monitoring metrics
9. **Next Steps** — Horizon cards with concrete next actions
### Output
Save as `{config_dir}/epistemic-cooperative/introspect/cognitive-partnership-profile.html`
(date-stamped variant if previous report exists).
After saving, print the file path so the user can open it manually.
---
## Edge Cases
- **First-time run**: If report.html missing, use CSS from `references/report-guide.md`.
- **Missing data**: Note limitations in the report, focus on available sources.
- **Specific question**: Orient entire analysis toward the question, not a generic profile.
- **Skip grounding**: If user declines Phase 3, proceed directly to Phase 4.
Philosophical identity section becomes optional in the report.
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!