Workflow review

Find where the workflow failed the owner, and say what should change so it does not happen again. The evidence is how the work actually went, read from past sessions, never what a skill says should have happened.

The rules

• Evidence is quoted, never paraphrased. Each piece is cited by session, time and project.
• A pattern needs two independent sessions. One sighting is usually that session's judgment call: list it and propose nothing. An eval or check finding rests on the case and its result instead.
• The owner's correction is the evidence. When the agent followed a skill and the owner corrected it, the skill is in question, not the owner.
• Cut before adding. A step that routinely finds nothing, or a rule models now follow unprompted, is a proposal to remove it.
• A mechanical rule becomes a check, as rules as checks in principles says, not another sentence.
• Propose changes only to what the user commits to: the rules of their repos and the skills whose source sits in a checkout of theirs. Friction with a skill installed from elsewhere becomes a rule in the repo's AGENTS.md, where skills defer everything project-specific; never an edit to the installed copy, and nothing sent to its author.

Read