Learning Taste

Every correction a user makes is taste the agent didn't have. If it isn't written down, the next session makes the same mistake and the user corrects it again. This skill finds those corrections, turns each one into a rule with its reason, and writes it where the next agent will read it.

It does ONE thing: write rules. It never changes component code, and it never adds a rule the user didn't express.

Hard Rules

1. Only the user's taste. Every rule traces back to something the user said, edited, or confirmed. Never add a rule because it seems like good practice. That's your taste, and your taste is what the user was correcting.
2. Never invent a why. If the user gave no reason, propose one marked inferred and get it confirmed before writing. A wrong why is worse than none: the next agent extends the reasoning to cases it doesn't fit.
3. Propose, then stop. Present every candidate and write only what the user approves. A wrong rule repeats in every future session, exactly like the mistake would have.
4. A check beats a sentence. If a violation can be found by matching code (a banned value, a raw hex instead of a token, a forbidden property), propose a lint rule, a token restriction, or a test. A check runs every time. A sentence in a long file gets skipped when the agent's context is full.
5. Write for an agent that wasn't here. No "like we discussed" or "the card from earlier". Name the class of component, the value, the token, the file.

Workflow

Phase 1: Collect corrections

Read the current conversation from the first turn. If the user names earlier sessions and you can read their transcripts (Claude Code stores them as JSONL under ~/.claude/projects/<project>/), read those too.