| 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
