L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Données et recherche · SKILL.md

reflect

reflect

On-demand human self-assessment of AI usage quality. Scores 5 dimensions from session data. Not agent performance review.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: reflect description: "On-demand human self-assessment of AI usage quality. Scores 5 dimensions from session data. Not agent performance review."

Reflect — Human AI-Usage Self-Assessment

This skill is for you (the human) to reflect on how well you're leveraging AI as a thought amplifier — not a review of agent performance.

Data source: The reflect hook (session-end) automatically collects observations, analyzes patterns, and updates metrics.json. This skill consumes that hook-produced data to produce a human-readable self-assessment.

Hook (auto)                    Skill (on-demand /reflect)
─────────────                  ──────────────────────────
observe → obs/*.jsonl  ──→     epic reflect --context 30
evolve → metrics.json  ──→     5-dimension scorecard
seed → evolved skills  ──→     Action items for the human
ingest → memory graph  ──→     Trend analysis

Iron Law

No score without evidence. Every rating must directly cite at least one of: obs stats, evolution patterns, memory nodes, or session summaries. Block self-serving bias: "doing well" conclusions require concrete metrics.

Process

Step 0 — Collect Context

# Uses Rust subcommand — works on all platforms (Linux, macOS, Windows)
epic reflect --context 30 > /tmp/reflect_ctx.json

Fallback if subcommand fails:

echo "obs_files: $(ls "$HARNESS_DIR/obs/" | wc -l)"
python3 -c "import json; m=json.load(open('$HARNESS_DIR/metrics.json')); print('total_sessions:', m.get('total_sessions',0))"

Query memory (if active):

epic mem recall "AI usage patterns decisions metacognition" --limit 8
epic mem list --type decision --limit 5
epic mem list --type pattern --limit 5

Step 1 — 5-Dimension Reflection

Score each dimension independently: 1–10 + evidence citation + one-line diagnosis.

Dimension 1: Thought Amplification

Question: Is AI a mere executor (code typist) or a genuine thought partner?

Metrics:

  • Agent tool call ratio (Agent / total_obs — higher = delegated thinking)
  • Skill invocation frequency (meta-layer usage)
  • council/discover/spec execution history
  • Memory decision node count

Scoring:

ScoreSignal
8–10Agent delegation ≥ 5%, diverse skill usage, council execution recorded
5–7Mostly Bash/Read/Edit, occasional Agent, complex decisions made solo
1–4Bash+Edit 90%+, AI at autocomplete level

Dimension 2: Self-Improvement

Question: Learning from mistakes, or repeating the same patterns?

Metrics:

  • evolution_stats.pattern_frequency — recurring patterns?
  • evolution_stats.stagnation_count — stagnant sessions
  • evolution_stats.trend_last10 — improving/stable/declining distribution
  • Evolved skills count vs timespan

Scoring:

ScoreSignal
8–10Trend improving ≥ 60%, no pattern recurrence, evolved skills growing
5–7Mostly stable trend, some pattern repeats, evolved skills plateau
1–4Trend declining or frequent stagnation, same mistakes repeated

Dimension 3: Metacognitive Expansion

Question: Are conversations with AI helping recognize and upgrade your own thinking?

Metrics:

  • Memory concept/pattern node count and recency
  • Decision/ADR recording frequency
  • Session snapshots mentioning "learnings"
  • /discover /spec execution history (problem-framing practice)

Scoring:

ScoreSignal
8–10Regular decision nodes, /discover /spec used, ADRs exist
5–7Intermittent recording, decision rationale only in code, no explicit notes
1–4Almost no memory nodes, context breaks between sessions

Dimension 4: Prompt Engineering

Question: Is prompt quality improving over time?

Metrics:

  • output_quality dimension average trend (metrics score_history)
  • tool_success rate trend
  • Evolved skills with prompt improvement patterns
  • Session average score trajectory (early vs recent)

Scoring:

ScoreSignal
8–10output_quality ≥ 0.80, score trend upward, evolved prompts increasing
5–7output_quality 0.65–0.80, improvement plateau
1–4output_quality < 0.65, downward trend, frequent re-edits

Dimension 5: Execution Efficiency

Question: Achieving the same goals faster and cheaper through AI?

Metrics:

  • execution_cost dimension average (1.0 = optimal)
  • Bash dominance (Bash > 50% suggests excessive low-level repetition)
  • Context compaction frequency (too frequent = context waste)
  • Agent sub-agent parallel usage

Scoring:

ScoreSignal
8–10execution_cost ≥ 0.90, parallel Agent usage, compaction < 20% of sessions
5–7Bash 40–60%, mostly single-agent serial execution
1–4Bash 70%+, no sub-agent usage, trivial tasks delegated to AI

Step 2 — Summary Scorecard

## AI Thought-Amplifier Reflection Report
Generated: {ISO-8601}  |  Window: {N} days  |  Total sessions: {total_sessions}

| Dimension            | Score | Grade | Key Evidence |
|----------------------|-------|-------|--------------|
| Thought Amplification | X/10 | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | Agent {N}x ({P}%), Skill {M}x |
| Self-Improvement      | X/10 | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | trend={T}, stagnation={S}x |
| Metacognitive Expansion | X/10 | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | decisions {D}, session notes {M} |
| Prompt Engineering    | X/10 | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | output_quality={Q}, trend={Δ} |
| Execution Efficiency  | X/10 | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | execution_cost={C}, Bash%={B} |
| **Overall**           | **X/10** | | |

Grade: 🟢 8–10 (good)  🟡 5–7 (fair)  🔴 1–4 (needs improvement)

Step 3 — Cold Summary

3–5 sentences. Rules:

  • Open with the lowest-scoring dimension
  • No "doing well" claims without numeric evidence
  • State the single biggest bottleneck
  • Classify usage as "execution automation" or "thought amplification"

Step 4 — Action Items (minimum 3)

Format: [Priority] Title — Concrete action — Expected impact

### Next Reflection Actions

1. [HIGH] {title}
   - Action: {concrete steps}
   - Metric: {how to measure}
   - Deadline: {session count or date}

2. [MED] ...
3. [LOW] ...

Recommended action pool (select by low-scoring dimensions):

  • Thought Amplification low → council mode weekly, /spec writing habit
  • Self-Improvement low → /evolve history periodic review, manual pattern notes
  • Metacognition low → epic mem add --type decision after every important decision
  • Prompt low → post low-quality session prompt review → seed improved evolved skill
  • Efficiency low → Agent parallel sub-agent patterns, script repetitive Bash calls

Step 5 — Save to Memory

Save reflection to memory (if mem tools active):

epic mem add \
  --type session \
  --title "AI usage reflection {date}" \
  --tags "reflection,metacognition" \
  --importance 0.8 \
  --body "Overall: {score}/10. Lowest: {lowest_dim}. Top action: {top_action}"

Anti-Rationalization

ExcuseRebuttalWhat to do instead
"Too few sessions for accurate reflection"Even 3 sessions reveal patterns. Insufficient data is not an excuse for a high score.Reflect on available data; add data collection improvement as an action item.
"Bash-heavy because it's a Rust project"Tool usage distribution doesn't only reflect task type. Check for Bash calls that could be delegated to Agent.Find ≥ 3 Bash calls that could be replaced by Agent delegation.
"Score 0.75 is good enough"0.75 is not an absolute standard. Trend vs previous period matters more.Compare last 5-session average vs prior 5-session average in score_history.
"No memory needed — context is enough"Context dies at session end. Without cross-session learning continuity, you start from scratch every time.Start the habit of epic mem add after every important decision — now.
"Code output is already good, so it's fine"Code output quality ≠ thought amplification. Good code can still mean AI is doing the thinking for you.Count how many decisions in the last 5 sessions you actually designed yourself.

Evidence Required

  • /tmp/reflect_ctx.json or manually collected data exists
  • Each of 5 dimensions cites ≥ 1 numeric evidence
  • Summary scorecard output complete
  • Cold summary states 1 specific bottleneck
  • Minimum 3 action items, each with measurement metric
  • Anti-Rationalization table applied to low-scoring dimensions (1–4)

Red Flags

  • All dimensions ≥ 7 → suspect positive bias. Re-verify each score against evidence.
  • Action items at "use more often" level → rewrite with concrete actions and metrics.
  • Summary under 200 chars → insufficient analysis. Cite more evidence.
  • Script failure stops reflection → fall back to manual collection and continue.
  • Memory save omitted → reflection won't carry into next session.
Skills enregistrées