| name | session-recap |
| description | Review the current session's work and evaluate whether any CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md files in the project need updating. Only update when genuinely necessary. Use at the end of a session or at a natural breakpoint. Trigger when the user invokes /session-recap, or says things like "review docs", "do CLAUDE.md files need updating?", "reflect on what we did", "recap the session", or wants to check documentation consistency after completing work. This is not a mechanical codebase scan — it evaluates update needs based on the context of what was done during the session.
|
Session Recap
Review the work done during this session. Two things to deliver:
- Evaluate whether CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md files need updating (only update when genuinely necessary)
- Report any pain points — tasks that were tedious, time-consuming, or required excessive manual effort
Workflow
1. Reflect on the session
Review the conversation and identify changes that may affect documentation:
- Architecture changes — new directory structures, module reorganization, dependency additions/removals
- Workflow changes — build, test, or deploy procedure modifications
- Conventions and patterns — new or changed coding conventions, naming rules, error handling policies
- Tooling and configuration — new tools introduced, config file changes, CI/CD modifications
- Key design decisions — decisions that affect future work (e.g., "we're using pattern X in this project")
Also identify pain points from the session — things that were annoying, slow, or required disproportionate effort relative to the value they produced. Examples:
- Repetitive manual steps — doing the same thing over and over, copy-pasting, manually running a sequence of commands
- Tooling friction — fighting with tools, working around limitations, needing multiple attempts to get something right
- Unclear or missing information — having to dig through code or docs to find something that should have been obvious
- Brittle processes — things that broke unexpectedly or required careful manual coordination to avoid breaking
These pain points are not used for documentation updates — they are reported separately so the user can identify opportunities for automation, tooling improvements, or workflow changes.
Do not read any files yet. First, build an understanding of "what changed" and "what was painful" purely from the session context.
2. Assess whether documentation is affected
Consider whether the changes identified in step 1 affect content that is (or should be) in CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md.
Updates are likely needed when:
- Documented workflows or procedures no longer match reality after this session's changes
- New conventions or patterns were introduced but aren't yet reflected in documentation
- Tools or commands referenced in documentation have changed
- Important design decisions were made that would help future sessions if documented
Updates are likely NOT needed when:
- The session's work falls outside the scope of what's documented (e.g., a simple bug fix)
- The work followed existing documented conventions — nothing new to capture
- Changes were temporary or experimental and shouldn't be persisted
If no impact is found, communicate that — but still continue to step 5 to report pain points if any were identified.
3. Read relevant files
Only if step 2 indicates likely impact, read the relevant files:
Glob: **/CLAUDE.md
Glob: **/AGENTS.md
No need to read every file. Based on step 1, focus on the files most likely affected. For example, if frontend conventions changed, only check the frontend-related CLAUDE.md.
4. Apply updates
When updating, follow these principles:
- Minimal changes: Only modify what needs changing. Do not rewrite entire documents.
- Preserve existing tone and structure: Match the document's existing writing style.
- Distinguish facts from conventions: Factual corrections (e.g., path changes) can be applied silently. New conventions or rules should be confirmed with the user before adding.
- Additions require judgment: Appending to an existing section is fine. Adding entirely new sections should be confirmed with the user first.
5. Report results
Documentation updates:
# When no updates are needed:
Reviewed the session. No CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md updates needed.
Reason: [brief reason]
# When updates were made:
Based on this session's work, updated the following:
- `path/to/CLAUDE.md`:
- [what changed and why]
Pain points (always report if any were identified, regardless of documentation updates):
## Pain Points
- **[short label]**: [what was tedious/difficult and why]
→ Possible improvement: [concrete suggestion if one comes to mind, otherwise omit]
- **[short label]**: [what was tedious/difficult and why]
→ Possible improvement: [concrete suggestion]
If no pain points were identified, report that too — a smooth session is worth noting:
## Pain Points
None — this session went smoothly.
When in doubt
If you're unsure whether something belongs in documentation, apply these filters:
- Would future-me (Claude) benefit from knowing this in the next session? → Yes means it's worth documenting
- Can this be derived by reading the code? → Yes means don't document it (code is the source of truth)
- Can this be found in git log? → Yes means don't document it
- Is this a project-specific decision or convention? → Yes means it's worth documenting
