| name | level-up |
| description | Weekly improvement loop. Asks 5 reflection questions, maps answers to Three Ms, recommends ONE next skill/script/connection/doc/cadence change, and produces a shippable artifact plan. Does not build anything until the user approves. Pairs with /audit. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
/level-up — Weekly Improvement Loop
Adapted from AIS-OS. Pairs with /audit (the score loop).
Goal: convert a week's friction into one concrete improvement.
When to use
- After
/audit — use the audit's top gap as input
- Friday weekly cadence (see
docs/CADENCE.md)
- After a frustrating week — surface what changed and why
- Before planning a sprint — pick the highest-leverage capability to build
When NOT to use
- Mid-task — interrupts flow
- During a fire — you can't reflect during the incident; do it after
- Daily — the questions need a week of signal to answer well
Inputs
- Last
/audit report (if recent)
decisions/log.md entries from past 7 days~/.claude/usage.jsonl (if available — what tools were used most)- The operator's memory of the week
Outputs
- Updated
decisions/log.md with a level-up entry
- A single proposed artifact: skill name, command name, script path, connection row, or cadence change
- A small plan to build it (file paths, estimated lines, validation steps)
- No code is written by this skill. It produces the plan, not the build.
Hard rules
- MUST recommend exactly ONE artifact. Never a menu of options.
- MUST favor the smallest useful POC. "Bike before motorcycle" (
references/3ms-framework.md).
- MUST refuse to build. Output the plan, log it, exit. Building happens in a separate session via
/ship or direct work.
- MUST require user approval before logging the recommendation as "accepted." If the user wants something different, log that instead.
Steps
1. Pre-flight
- Read the most recent
docs/audits/*.md (if any)
- Read last 7 days of
decisions/log.md
- Optionally inspect
~/.claude/usage.jsonl for last 7 days
2. Ask the 5 questions (one at a time, do not batch)
Q1. Repetition
"What did you do 3+ times this week?"
Listen for: copy-paste flows, manual data formatting, looking up the same thing twice, repeated email patterns.
Q2. Drudgery
"What was drudgery — copy-paste, repetitive admin, formatting, manual transcription?"
Listen for: tasks the operator visibly hates. These are the highest-ROI automations because the operator will actually use the result.
Q3. Smart-intern tasks
"What was a 'smart intern' task — something AI could draft to 80% with review?"
Listen for: writing, summarising, classification, structured extraction, code-shaped work with clear acceptance criteria.
Q4. The 10x stress test
"What would break first if your workload increased 10x next month?"
Listen for: the first bottleneck. This is usually the highest-leverage thing to fix, but only if the rest of the system is healthy.
Q5. The growth lever
"What would help get 10x more customers / users / outcomes on autopilot?"
Listen for: the constraint on the upside, not just the downside. Often surfaces a missing connection or a missing capability.
3. Map answers to Three Ms
For each answer, classify:
| Theme | Maps to |
|---|
| "I keep doing X manually" | Method → Eliminate (does it need to exist?) → Automate (script/skill?) |
| "I asked Claude to do X but it kept missing Y" | Mindset → Curiosity Rule → context gap, fix the reference |
| "I built X but barely use it" | Method → bad fit, retire to archives/, log learning |
| "I need a thing that does Z" | Machine → which is the right artifact (script vs skill vs agent vs recipe)? |
| "I'm overloaded by inbound" | Method → Eliminate first, then Find Constraint |
4. Score each candidate
For every candidate that surfaces from Q1-Q5, score:
| Dimension | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|
| Impact (hours saved per week) | <1 | 1-3 | 3+ |
| Cost (hours to build) | 8+ | 2-8 | <2 |
| Confidence (will I actually use it?) | low | medium | high |
| Reversibility (if it fails, how fast to rip out?) | days | hours | minutes |
Pick the candidate with the highest (impact × confidence) ÷ cost. Tie-break on reversibility.
5. Produce the plan
Output format:
## Recommended next artifact
**Type:** skill | script | command | recipe | connection | cadence change | reference doc
**Name:** <kebab-case>
**Path:** <where it goes>
**Trigger:** <when does it activate>
**Goal:** <one sentence>
**Why this one:** <impact × confidence ÷ cost reasoning>
**POC plan (Bike Method):**
1. ...
2. ...
3. Validation: ...
**Estimated:** <hours>
**Kill switch:** <how to disable in 60s>
**Will this run on a schedule?** <no, until proven manually 1 week>
6. Confirm with user
"Proceed with this artifact, or pick something else?"
If yes: log to decisions/log.md and END.
If no: ask what should be built instead, log that.
If "skip this week": log "skipped — no clear winner this week." That's a valid outcome.
7. Log
## YYYY-MM-DD — Level-up: <artifact name>
**Decision:** Build <artifact> next. Reasoning: <one line>.
**Type:** <skill|script|...>
**Estimated cost:** <hours>
**Status:** Planned.
**Follow-up:** Implement via /ship or direct edit. Re-audit after build to verify movement on the targeted Four-Cs pillar.
8. END
Do not implement anything. The build is the operator's decision in a separate session.
Failure modes
| Symptom | Cause | Fix |
|---|
| Operator answers "nothing notable" to all 5 | Either an unusually quiet week, or skill ran too early | Defer; suggest re-running in 3-4 days. Don't fabricate a candidate. |
| All candidates have impact = 1 | Real situation: the OS is humming and there's no obvious leverage | Log "no recommendation this week — system stable." That's a valid outcome. |
| Same recommendation surfaced 3 weeks ago and was ignored | Operator is dodging | Surface this honestly: "This was recommended in and not built. Build, defer formally, or remove from candidates." |
| Operator wants to build something not on the candidate list | Often valid — they have context this skill doesn't | Log their choice. Don't argue. The Curiosity Rule cuts both ways. |
Reference files
references/3ms-framework.md — the mindsetreferences/four-cs-framework.md — the system structurereferences/skill-building-framework.md — how to actually build the artifact nextdocs/CAPABILITIES.md — the registry the artifact will joindecisions/log.md — where this run lands
Improvement loop
After every run:
- Did the operator build the recommended artifact? If no → recommendation is wrong, or operator priorities shifted (both are signal)
- Did the next
/audit show movement on the targeted pillar? If no → recommendation didn't address the root cause
- Did the operator come back with the same drudgery in Q2 next week? If yes → previous recommendation didn't deliver
