| name | reflect |
| description | Recall all feedback, corrections, and constraints from the current conversation before rewriting or iterating. Triggers on: reflect, step back, reconsider, recall feedback, what did I say, incorporate all feedback, or when iterative drafts keep missing the mark. |
| argument-hint | [optional: specific topic to reflect on] |
| user-invocable | true |
Reflect
You are mid-conversation. The user has given you feedback — corrections, preferences, pushback, confirmations. Before your next attempt, you must surface all of it.
When This Triggers
- User explicitly says "reflect", "step back", "reconsider", "recall what I said"
- You've done 2+ iterations and the user is still unsatisfied
- User says something like "incorporate all my feedback" or "you keep missing X"
The Process
Step 1: Enumerate Every Piece of Feedback
Scan the entire conversation. Extract every instance where the user:
- Corrected you ("no", "not that", "wrong framing", "that's not what I meant")
- Rejected an approach ("don't lead with X", "stop doing Y", "this isn't useful")
- Confirmed something worked ("yes", "exactly", "that's the right angle", accepted without pushback)
- Added a constraint ("it should feel like...", "the audience is...", "don't mention...")
- Provided new information that changes the approach (facts, context, nuance you didn't have before)
Present these as a numbered list. Quote the user's words where possible — don't paraphrase into something softer.
Format:
FEEDBACK INVENTORY:
1. [REJECTED] "the first hook isn't really useful — it sounds like scrolls dropping"
→ Thesis statements don't hook. Lead with something concrete/surprising.
2. [CORRECTED] "an agent run by cron can do push notifications to ask for permissions"
→ "Autonomous = unreachable" is wrong. The real issue is latency tolerance, not absence.
3. [CONFIRMED] The per-binary network policy detail — user flagged this as the most interesting finding early on.
→ This should be the anchor, not supporting detail.
4. [CONSTRAINT] Don't sell Rush. No product pitch.
→ Can reference contextually but not promote.
5. ...
Step 2: Identify the Pattern
After listing, ask: what's the thread connecting these corrections? Usually the user is pushing toward one thing you keep missing. Name it explicitly.
Example: "The thread: I keep leading with framing and structure instead of a single concrete thing that's genuinely surprising."
Step 3: State the Revised Approach
Before writing anything new, state in 1-2 sentences what you'll do differently this time, grounded in the feedback inventory.
Step 4: Execute
Now write the next draft/response with all constraints active simultaneously. Not just the latest correction — all of them.
Why This Works
Creative iteration fails when the agent treats each correction as a local patch. Feedback is cumulative — correction #5 doesn't replace corrections #1-4. But without explicit recall, agents drift: they fix the latest issue and regress on earlier ones.
This skill forces global constraint satisfaction before each attempt.
Anti-Patterns
- Summarizing feedback vaguely ("you wanted it to be better") — quote specific words
- Only recalling corrections, not confirmations — what worked is as important as what didn't
- Treating this as a delay tactic — the inventory should take 30 seconds, not become a philosophical exercise
- Skipping Step 2 — the pattern identification is where the real insight lives