mcpField
R
reflect

reflect

github.com/yeachan-heoその他40.7k7 回インストール今日更新
リポジトリ

reflect について

長時間のタスク後に、3 人のレビューパネルがセッションのトランスクリプトを監査し、ツール利用、判断、見落とした代替案を確認して、具体的なスキル修正を提案します。知見は skillify に反映されます。長時間の銀行業務セッションから学びを得る場合に使用します。

インストール

コマンドをコピーしてターミナルで実行します。

$npx skills add https://github.com/yeachan-heo/oh-my-claudecode --skill reflect

インストール後、Claude Code で/reflectを入力して読み込まれたか確認します。

同梱ファイルreferences/reviewer-lenses.md

README(原文)English

プロジェクトの README より

この README の日本語訳はまだありません。以下は英語の原文です。日本語の紹介はページ上部をご覧ください。

Reflect

Long sessions teach things nobody writes down. This skill audits the session transcript with independent reviewers and converts the findings into proposed edits to OMC's own skills — before the lessons evaporate.

When to use

  • a marathon session just ended (or is ending) and went well or badly in ways worth banking
  • the user asks "what did we learn", "bank this session", or says reflect

When not to use

  • routine sessions with nothing anomalous — reflection on nothing is noise
  • the user wants a summary of what happened — ketchup does that

Workflow

  1. Locate the transcript for this session and hand each reviewer the path, not a paste — reviewers read it themselves.
  2. Seat the panel: three read-only reviewers in one message, in the background, each with one lens:
    • tooling reviewer — which commands, skills, and agents helped or wasted time; what a script or skill should have existed
    • judgment reviewer — where calls were wrong, late, or unverifiable; which principle would have caught it
    • divergent reviewer — the alternative approaches never tried; what a fresh agent would have done differently Each returns at most three findings, each with transcript citations. Wait for every reviewer to reach a terminal state and collect its output before Step 3 — background dispatch returns before the reviewers finish, and synthesizing on a partial panel proposes misleading skill edits. A reviewer that times out is named as missing, not silently dropped.
  3. Synthesize: merge duplicates, drop unevidenced claims, rank by how often the lesson would recur. A lesson that applies once is a note; one that applies every session is a skill edit.
  4. Propose skill edits: for each surviving recurring lesson, the concrete edit — which skill file, which section, what wording — or a proposal for a new skill via skillify. Human-ruling wording stays verbatim (why skill epistemics).
  5. Report the findings and the proposed edits; apply an edit only with the user's go — reflection proposes, the user disposes.

Rules

  • Reviewers cite the transcript; a finding without a citation is dropped.
  • The panel never edits skills itself — proposals go to the user and then to skillify for execution.
  • Never edit a skill inside the installed plugin cache. Before the user approves an edit, show its destination — the repo's skills/<name>/ for a shipped skill, or the user's .claude/skills/<name>/ copy — and after approval edit that destination in place. Reflection never opens a PR or pushes.
  • Findings about the user's own choices are reported as observations, not corrections.

コメント