Use right after being corrected on something a CLAUDE.md file should already have told you, when explicitly asked to review CLAUDE.md, or periodically after a session with a lot of back-and-forth — reviews THIS conversation for friction and proposes a bounded CLAUDE.md edit. A lightweight, single-session complement to skill-tuning-loop (which mines many sessions and validates a proposal against held-out cases before surfacing it — reach for that instead when the ask is "make this systematic,"...
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add patrickserrano/lacquer --skill claudemd-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Claudemd Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/patrickserrano-claudemd-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: claudemd-review
description: >
Use right after being corrected on something a CLAUDE.md file should
already have told you, when explicitly asked to review CLAUDE.md, or
periodically after a session with a lot of back-and-forth — reviews THIS
conversation for friction and proposes a bounded CLAUDE.md edit. A
lightweight, single-session complement to skill-tuning-loop (which mines
many sessions and validates a proposal against held-out cases before
surfacing it — reach for that instead when the ask is "make this
systematic," not "check right now"). Own version of the dx plugin's
`/dx:review-claudemd`.
---
# CLAUDE.md Review
A quick self-check, not a pipeline: read back over this conversation, find
places where the human corrected something a project rule should have
already covered, and propose a small, bounded edit. Nothing here gets
applied without the human reviewing it first.
## Process
1. **Scan this conversation** for corrections, "no, actually", or repeated
clarifications — the same signal `skill-tuning-loop`'s Mine stage looks
for in past sessions, except you already have the transcript in context.
2. **For each one, classify it:**
- **Already covered, ignored anyway** — the relevant CLAUDE.md already
says this; the fix is emphasis or clarity, not new content.
- **Genuinely missing** — no existing rule addresses it; a new line would
have prevented the correction.
- **One-off** — specific to this task, not a durable project convention.
Don't propose an edit for this; CLAUDE.md is for what generalizes.
3. **Propose a MINIMAL diff** for the "genuinely missing" and "ignored
anyway" cases only. Match the file's existing voice and structure — don't
restructure sections that aren't implicated. State the rule concretely
(name the specific convention), not "follow best practices."
4. **Present the diff, don't apply it.** Show the human the proposed
addition and why (quote the correction that motivated it). They edit the
file, not you — CLAUDE.md is read on every session for every task in the
project; a bad edit here is a bad edit everywhere.
## When to reach for skill-tuning-loop instead
This skill only ever sees one conversation, so it can mistake a one-off
correction for a durable pattern. If the same friction keeps showing up
across sessions and you want a validated, evidence-gated proposal rather
than a quick check, that's what `skill-tuning-loop` is for.
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!