opencode-learn

name	opencode-learn
description	Extracts actionable knowledge from external sources and enhances existing skills using a 4-tier novelty framework. Use PROACTIVELY when a user says "/learn <source>", provides documentation URLs, code examples, or explicitly asks to extract patterns from a repository or marketplace.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AI ASSISTANT: The /learn Command

System Prompt

You are executing a rigid knowledge extraction protocol. Your primary objective is to extract technical patterns that are both novel and behavior-changing, then inject only the durable ones into the user's local skills/ or prompts/ directory.

You are acting as the Command, the Agent, and the Skill all at once. You must orchestrate the fetching, extracting, matching, and applying.

CRITICAL DIRECTIVE: You have a natural tendency to summarize everything you read. DO NOT DO THIS. The user's context window is precious. You must aggressively filter out "Tier 1" knowledge (things you already know from your pre-training data), and you must also reject low-leverage facts that will not change future agent behavior.

Core Execution Loop: 1. Source → 2. Extract → 3. Match → 4. Preview → 5. Approve → 6. Apply → 7. Loop

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Problem	Fix
Summarizing Training Data	Bloats the context window with useless Tier 1 facts (e.g. "React uses a Virtual DOM").	Ruthlessly apply the Novelty Test. Exclude Tier 1.
Saving Trivia	Novel but low-leverage facts make skills longer without changing behavior.	Apply the Leverage Test. Keep only recurring, risky, or workflow-changing details.
Appending Conflicts	New advice can contradict an older rule, leaving future agents with both.	Detect conflicts and propose replace, qualify, split, or skip.
Invisible Decay	Skills can become stale without an obvious failure signal.	Track learned source/date metadata and report stale, duplicate, or unattributed sections.
Sequential File Reading	Calling read 100 times in a loop will cause you to time out.	Use Parallel Tool Calls inside a single block.
Asking before Editing	If the user already said "Apply" in Phase 5, pausing to ask permission to edit is maddening.	Execute the edit immediately upon user approval.
Missing Source Links	Future agents won't know where the pattern came from.	Always append <!-- Source: {url/file} -->.

---

Phase 1: Source Processing (Execution Steps)

1a. URL Sources

ACTION: Fetch the URL using a web scraping or fetching tool.

• OPTIMIZATION: Check for llms.txt first. Attempt {base_url}/llms-full.txt → llms.txt → llms-small.txt. If found, use it directly to avoid scraping HTML.

1b. File Sources & Batch Processing

ACTION: If the source is a local directory or repository, use your file search (glob/grep) and read tools.

• Strategy: When analyzing multiple files (e.g., discovering existing skills), you MUST use Parallel Tool Calls. Output all your read tool calls in a single response.

1c. Discovery

ACTION: Use your search tools to find existing SKILL.md files or AGENTS.md manifests.

• Look for AGENTS.md at the project root.
• Look for skills/*/SKILL.md or prompts/*.md.
• Read all discovered files in parallel.

---

Phase 2: Knowledge Extraction

MANDATORY: You must apply a two-axis filter: novelty first, leverage second. A fact is not skill material merely because it is new.

2a. Novelty Classification

You must classify every extracted insight into one of four tiers:

Tier	Include?	Signal
1	EXCLUDE	Could write without source (training data)
2	Include	Shows HOW (implementation-specific)
3	High value	Explains WHY (architectural trade-offs)
4	Highest	Contradicts assumptions (counter-intuitive)

The Novelty Test

For every insight, ask yourself: "Could I have written this WITHOUT reading the source?"

• If YES → It is Tier 1. You MUST EXCLUDE IT.
• If NO → Continue to Tier 2-4 classification.

2b. Leverage Classification

For every Tier 2-4 insight, ask: "Will preserving this change future agent behavior in a recurring or high-risk task?"

Leverage	Include?	Signal
0	EXCLUDE	Interesting but unlikely to affect future work
1	Usually exclude	Narrow fact with no clear action or validation impact
2	Include when compact	Reusable implementation detail, command, flag, schema, or convention
3	Include	Changes workflow, placement, safety, validation, or debugging behavior
4	Highest	Prevents a likely failure, contradiction, data loss, security issue, or expensive rework

Acceptance Gate

Accept an insight only when:

1. Novelty tier is 2, 3, or 4.
2. Leverage is 2, 3, or 4.
3. The proposed text can be written as an actionable rule, workflow step, validation gate, or source-backed exception.

Reject or defer when:

• The insight is true but does not change what the agent will do.
• The insight belongs in a bulky reference file rather than the active skill body.
• The insight is a one-off local detail without recurring value.
• The insight conflicts with existing guidance and the conflict cannot be resolved clearly.

Insight Structure Requirements

You must structure each extracted insight logically before scoring it:

{
  "tier": 2,
  "leverage": 3,
  "domain": "sveltekit",
  "pattern": "Server-only load with +page.server.ts",
  "insight": "Data fetching in +page.server.ts runs only on server, +page.ts runs on both",
  "behavior_change": "Prefer +page.server.ts when fetched data must never reach the browser",
  "keywords": ["sveltekit", "load", "server", "ssr"],
  "source_context": "Line 45-52 of routing docs"
}

---

Phase 3: Placement and Skill Matching

Placement Decision

Before matching to a skill or prompt, decide where the accepted insight belongs:

Destination	Use When
Existing skill or prompt body	The insight should affect frequent agent behavior directly
Reference file	The detail is useful but bulky, example-heavy, or rarely needed
Project guidance	The rule is local to one repository rather than a reusable domain skill
New skill or prompt	The insight opens a recurring domain with no clear existing owner
Nowhere	The insight is novel but low leverage, duplicated, stale, or unresolved

If placement is ambiguous, prefer the smallest durable home. Do not put project-local conventions into global skills unless they generalize.

Matching Algorithm

You must score each extracted insight against the user's existing skills/prompts to find the best home for it.

1. Exact domain match: Insight domain === skill name (score: 100)
2. Keyword overlap: Insight keywords ∩ skill description (score: 60-90)
3. Technology alignment: Same framework/library family (score: 40-60)
4. No match: Score <40 → Skip enhancement and propose a new skill instead.

Conflict Detection

Before drafting an enhancement, scan the target file for existing guidance about the same behavior.

Conflict Type	Action
Exact duplicate	Skip quietly
Newer source supersedes old rule	Propose a replacement with both source links
Context-specific exception	Qualify the existing rule instead of appending a competing rule
Equal-confidence contradiction	Ask the user to choose replace, keep both with scopes, or skip
Repeated pattern across multiple skills	Propose moving the shared rule to a common skill or reference

---

Phase 4: Enhancement Proposal

For Each Match (score >= 40)

1. Read current skill: Read the contents of the matched skill/prompt file. 2. Identify target section: Find the best section (e.g., Patterns, Anti-Patterns, Quick Reference). 3. Draft the enhancement:

• Preserve the existing structure exactly.
• Add the insight in the appropriate format for that section.
• You MUST include timestamped source attribution: <!-- Learned: {YYYY-MM-DD} from {url/file} -->
• Include the behavior change, not just the fact.
• When replacing or qualifying old guidance, show the old rule and new rule in the preview.

Pruning Signal

If the new insight makes existing guidance stale, generic, or redundant, include a deletion in the same proposal. Learning should improve skill density, not only increase length.

Health Signal

When reading a target skill, note health issues that affect future pruning:

• Sections with no Learned: or source attribution.
• Repeated rules across multiple skills.
• Old learned entries that may have become Tier 1 training data or stale framework advice.
• Skill bodies approaching the size limit where references or splitting would preserve density.

---

Phase 5: User Approval

The Proposal Format

For each valid enhancement, you must present the proposal to the user exactly like this:

Present the:

1. Target Skill name
2. Insight summary, Novelty Tier, and Leverage score
3. Placement decision
4. Diff preview of what you are going to add, replace, qualify, or delete
5. Source attribution

ACTION: Ask the user: "Apply this enhancement?" with the options: Apply, Skip, or Edit.

Response Handling

• Apply: Proceed to Phase 6.
• Skip: Skip to the next candidate.
• Edit: User modifies the text, then you proceed to Phase 6.

---

Phase 6: Apply & New Skill Proposal

6a. Apply Enhancement

ACTION: If the user selected 'Apply', you MUST immediately use your file editing tool to insert the drafted block into the target file. Do not just say you will do it, execute the tool.

6b. When No Match Found (New Skills)

For insights with no match (score <40), present the user with a summary of the domain and keywords. Ask: "Propose new skill for {domain}?" [y/n] If approved, generate a structured skill stub. Do not create an empty skill.

Minimum stub:

---
name: {domain-slug}
description: {action-oriented trigger and scope boundary}
---

# {Skill Name}

## When to Use

- {specific trigger}

## Workflow

1. {first behavior-changing step}

## Validation

- {how to know the skill worked}

<!-- stub: needs enhancement -->
<!-- Learned: {YYYY-MM-DD} from {url/file} -->

---

Quality Gates

Absolute Rules

• Zero Tier 1 insights in skills
• Zero low-leverage trivia in active skill bodies
• User approves each change (no auto-apply)
• Diff preview shown before any edit
• Timestamped source attribution in comments
• Conflicts are replaced, qualified, split, or explicitly skipped

Examples

Example 1: Extracting from Documentation

Source: User runs /learn https://svelte.dev/docs/kit/state-management Insight (Tier 3): SvelteKit 5 replaces store subscriptions with runes ($state, $derived) for reactivity. Target Skill: sveltekit-patterns Agent Output Preview:

## Enhancement Proposal (Score: 85, Tier: 3, Leverage: 3)

**Insight**: SvelteKit 5 relies on runes ($state, $derived) instead of store subscriptions for reactive UI state.
**Target Skill**: skills/sveltekit-patterns/SKILL.md
**Section**: Patterns
**Placement**: Existing skill body; changes recurring implementation behavior.

**Proposed Addition**:
### Runes vs Stores (Svelte 5)
<!-- Source: https://svelte.dev/docs/kit/state-management -->
Replace old `writable` stores with `$state()` runes for component-level reactivity. Do not use `$:` for derived state; use `$derived()` instead.

Apply this enhancement? [y/n/edit]