reflect

name	reflect
description	Per-project self-improvement - reads the .harness ledger and feedback memories, then proposes gated rule/threshold/ADR changes so the project stops repeating mistakes. Run periodically.
user_invocable	true
allowed-tools	["Read","Write","Edit","Bash","Glob","Grep"]

Reflect: Per-Project Self-Improvement

You are performing a reflection - turning the signal this project has captured into durable improvements. Nothing is applied without the developer's approval.

Phase 1 - Orient (gather signal)

• Run the stats script over the ledger: ~/.claude/hooks/harness-ledger-stats.sh --ledger .harness/ledger.jsonl --min-recurr 3 If that path doesn't exist, the hooks aren't installed at ~/.claude/hooks/ - run the copy from wherever this project keeps them. If the script prints all zeros there is no ledger yet (no signal captured) - stop; there is nothing to reflect on.
• Read the current project rules in CLAUDE.md so you improve them rather than duplicate.
• Read recent feedback-type memory files - these are the developer's explicit corrections and are the highest-value signal. Locate the memory directory first (it sits next to MEMORY.md; find . -name MEMORY.md if unsure), then grep -l 'type: feedback' <memory-dir>/*.md.
• Read the most recent .harness/reflections/*.md report (if any) to recall the last metric snapshot and what was already changed.

Phase 2 - Cluster

From the stats output and feedback memories, identify recurring problems:

• Each recurring <rule> <prefix> <count> line is a friction cluster - the same check keeps firing in the same area.
• Group related feedback corrections by theme.
• Ignore one-off events; focus on what repeats.

Phase 3 - Propose (one candidate per cluster)

For each cluster, draft exactly one proposed change, choosing the fitting type:

Type	When	Where it lands
Project rule	a convention would stop the repeat	append to CLAUDE.md project-specific section
Threshold change	a guardrail is too strict/loose	a diff to .claude/settings.json or the hook - shown, never auto-applied
Lint rule	the mistake is mechanically catchable	a diff to eslint.config.mjs / biome.jsonc
ADR / knowledge	durable "why" worth keeping	a new memory file or docs/adr/ note

Present all proposals together as a numbered list with the concrete change for each.

Phase 4 - Gate & Record

• Ask the developer to approve, edit, or reject each proposal (like /remember).
• Apply only the approved ones, then commit them (use /commit).
• Create .harness/reflections/ if needed (mkdir -p .harness/reflections), then write a reflection report to .harness/reflections/YYYY-MM-DD.md containing:
  • the full stats output (the metric snapshot, so the next reflection can compare),
  • the clusters you found,
  • which proposals were approved / rejected and why.

The report is committed; the raw .harness/ledger.jsonl stays gitignored. Signal is private; wisdom is shared.

Measuring success

The headline metric is recurring_events from the stats output. Compare it to the value in the previous reflection report. If a rule you promoted last time worked, the cluster it targeted should have shrunk. Note the trend explicitly in the new report.