ワンクリックで
adv-reflect
Two-plane post-change reflection methodology for archived ADV changes
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
メニュー
Two-plane post-change reflection methodology for archived ADV changes
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
| name | adv-reflect |
| description | Two-plane post-change reflection methodology for archived ADV changes |
| keywords | ["adv","reflect","reflection","postmortem","wisdom","friction","process"] |
| metadata | {"priority":"medium","source":"adv-reflect-command"} |
Methodology for post-archive reflection. Produce durable learning without changing gates, tasks, or active change state. Command owns tool calls and archive writes; skill owns analysis rubric and templates.
Assess how change work ran.
| Dimension | Evidence | Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | task count, elapsed time, retry density, per-gate duration | Was work sized and sequenced well? Where did time burn? |
| Quality | TDD compliance, review findings, harden findings, verification failures | Did checks catch real issues? Did quality improve before archive? |
| Process | gate completion, TDD intent distribution, delegation count, drift triggers | Did workflow fit scope? Any avoidable loops? |
| Wisdom | entries captured/promoted, reuse hits | What should future changes reuse? |
Assess ADV/OpenCode/tooling friction that slowed or distorted work.
| Category | Meaning |
|---|---|
docs_gap | Existing docs failed to prevent confusion |
missing_capability | Repeated manual pattern suggests tool/abstraction gap |
tool_gap | Tool failed, was too weak, or required awkward handling |
workaround | Manual workaround succeeded but should not be normal path |
ux_friction | Workflow/approval/interaction caused abandonment or confusion |
provider_specific | Runtime/provider mismatch, e.g. Bun vs Node or model API quirk |
Load from archived change:
| Wisdom Type | Friction Category | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
gotcha | docs_gap | Documentation did not prevent surprise |
pattern | missing_capability | Recurring manual pattern suggests missing tool/abstraction |
failure | tool_gap | Known failure mode indicates tool limitation |
convention | workaround | Manual convention signals automation gap |
| Signal | Friction Category | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Retries > 0 with failed final attempt | tool_gap | Tool/strategy did not succeed |
| Retries > 0 with successful final attempt | workaround | Alternative path solved it |
| Same error class across tasks | missing_capability | Systemic gap |
Any cancellation with reason may indicate ux_friction, especially if reason cites confusing workflow, approval mismatch, or abandoned path.
Capture provider_specific only when issue depends on runtime/provider:
Do NOT use provider-specific for generic logic errors, missing tests, or design mistakes.
Recommended derived values:
retry_density = retry_total / max(done_tasks, 1)tdd_compliance = tasks_with_required_verification_claims / tasks_requiring_tddcompleted_gates = count(done gates)delegation_count = tasks with delegation evidencedrift_triggers = review/harden drift pausesscope_size = small | medium | large based on elapsed time + task count from local archived change metricsLabel missing metrics as unknown; do not fabricate.
## Reflection
### Change
{change-id} — {title}
### Plane 1: Project Execution
**Efficiency**
- Tasks: {done}/{total} done, {cancelled} cancelled
- Retries: {retry_total} total (density: {retry_density})
- Elapsed: {elapsed_minutes} min
- Scope size: {small | medium | large | unknown}
**Quality**
- TDD compliance: {tdd_compliance}%
- Review findings: {review_findings_count}
- Harden findings: {harden_findings_count}
**Process**
- Gates completed: {completed_gates}/{total_gates}
- Delegation used: {delegation_count} tasks
- Drift triggers: {drift_triggers}
**Wisdom**
- Entries captured: {entries_captured}
- Promoted to project: {entries_promoted}
### Plane 2: System Friction
| Category | Description | Workaround |
|---|---|---|
| {category} | {description} | {workaround} |
### Highlights
- {highlight 1}
- {highlight 2}
### Improvement Suggestions
- {suggestion 1}
- {suggestion 2}
---
> **{change-id}** · reflection persisted · {timestamp}
adv_reflect persists structured two-plane report to reflections.jsonl.REFLECTION.md inside archive bundle./adv-archive is warning-only and MUST NOT block archive completion.REFLECTION COMPLETE includes:
/adv-archive.unknown.Architecture inconsistency detection via deterministic tools, research fallback, and AI heuristic
AI-generated code quality detection via AST, regex, and heuristic analysis
Backend technology stack evaluation — choose boring technology scaled by project context. Use when selecting languages, databases, async infra, or API styles for new or existing backends.
Competitive intelligence research methodology for source code and public information comparison
Improvement-discovery methodology for current-state, LBP, and external landscape analysis
Backlog reconciliation, bug priority assignment, and ROADMAP.md regeneration methodology