Mid-conversation reflection skill that pauses execution and zooms out from detail-mode to honestly reassess direction, assumptions, and bias. Use when the user says 'reflect', 'take a step back', 'step back', 'zoom out', 'are we missing something', 'bigger picture', 'sanity check this', 'are we on track', 'are we overthinking this', 'forest for the trees', or any variation signaling intent to break out of detail-mode and reassess. Also trigger when the conversation has gone deep on implementation details without strategic check-in, or when the user shows signs of being stuck — that's often a signal the framing needs a reset, not more detail work. Intentionally low-intake: runs the 5-dimension analysis immediately when prior context is rich enough; asks one forcing clarifier only when invocation context is too thin to reassess from.
Mid-conversation reflection skill that pauses execution and zooms out from detail-mode to honestly reassess direction, assumptions, and bias. Use when the user says 'reflect', 'take a step back', 'step back', 'zoom out', 'are we missing something', 'bigger picture', 'sanity check this', 'are we on track', 'are we overthinking this', 'forest for the trees', or any variation signaling intent to break out of detail-mode and reassess. Also trigger when the conversation has gone deep on implementation details without strategic check-in, or when the user shows signs of being stuck — that's often a signal the framing needs a reset, not more detail work. Intentionally low-intake: runs the 5-dimension analysis immediately when prior context is rich enough; asks one forcing clarifier only when invocation context is too thin to reassess from.
compatibility
opencode
Reflect — Mid-Conversation Reassessment
Portability: Pure-reasoning skill. No external tools required. Works in Claude Code CLI + Claude.ai web natively. Most portable in the v2 collection.
When invoked mid-conversation, this skill pauses execution and produces a frank reassessment of where the conversation has been heading. Output is flowing analysis (no headers, conversational tone) covering macro perspective, gap analysis, reflective inquiry, bias check, and contextual alignment. The skill ends with a clear directional recommendation: continue, pivot, or pause to answer a specific question.
Invocation Triggers
Explicit phrases:
"reflect"
"take a step back" / "step back"
"zoom out"
"are we missing something"
"bigger picture"
"what are we missing"
"let's pause"
"sanity check this"
"are we on track"
"are we overthinking this"
"forest for the trees"
Implicit signals (no phrase needed):
Conversation has gone 10+ turns deep on implementation details without strategic check-in
User shows signs of frustration or stuck-ness
Repeated dead-ends or pivots within a short span
When you detect an implicit trigger, don't auto-invoke — ask the user if they want to step back. Implicit signals are a prompt to OFFER reflection, not to unilaterally run it.
Stop Directive (Before Reassessing)
Halt the current thread. Don't continue execution of the in-progress task. Reflection is a pause, not a side-quest.
This matters because:
Continuing detail work while "reflecting on the side" defeats the purpose — you'll over-weight the current direction
The user expects a clear break in cadence
The reassessment needs full attention to the conversation history
Grill-Me Optional Clarifier
This skill is intentionally low-intake — most invocations should run the 5-dimension analysis immediately without questions. The grill-me discipline applies only when the invocation is ambiguous (e.g., user pastes "step back" at the start of a fresh conversation with no prior context to reassess).
Q1 (optional, asked only when context is too thin to reassess)
What specifically should I reassess? Pick one:
The goal — are we solving the right problem?
The approach — is the path we're on the best one?
The assumptions — what are we taking for granted?
All of the above (default if you have time)
Why I'm asking: I'm seeing limited prior context to reassess, so I want to focus the reflection rather than guess. If you'd rather I do all three, that's fine — say so.
Forcing choice with default. Asked only when context is genuinely thin; otherwise skip and run the full analysis on existing conversation.
Stop condition: One question max. If the user invokes mid-conversation with normal context, no questions are asked — the skill runs directly.
The 5-Dimension Analysis Framework
Re-read the full conversation from the original goal forward — not just recent turns. The discipline that distinguishes real reflection from local-context summary.
1. Macro Perspective
Original goal: What did the user actually start trying to do?
Drift detection: Has the conversation moved away from that goal? Toward something better or worse?
Connection check: How does current work connect to the larger objective?
Anchor with specific evidence: "At turn 3 the goal was X; by turn 12 we're working on Y. Is Y a productive narrowing of X, or a drift away?"
2. Gap Analysis
Unverified assumptions — what are we taking for granted that we haven't checked?
Missing stakeholders / audiences / users — who needs this beyond the immediate context?
Skipped constraints — technical, regulatory, resource limits not addressed
Dismissed alternatives — paths considered but rejected; revisit briefly
External factors — timing, market, dependencies not in scope
3. Reflective Inquiry
Is the problem framed correctly?
Solving the right problem vs. an adjacent easier one?
Simpler path being overcomplicated?
Harder but more valuable path being avoided?
Fresh-eyes perspective: would someone else approach this differently?
4. Bias Check
Five biases — recognize each through specific conversation patterns:
Bias
Recognition cue
Confirmation bias
Evidence cited only supports the working hypothesis; counter-evidence absent or dismissed
Sunk cost fallacy
"We've already invested X" / "we're far enough in to..." instead of fresh cost/benefit
Anchoring
Stuck on first option mentioned; new options compared against it rather than evaluated independently
Complexity bias
Adding features / steps / safeguards without specific justification for each
Recency bias
Over-weighting last few turns; older but important context being ignored
For each detected bias: name it, cite the specific evidence, suggest a corrective move.
