reflect

name	reflect
description	Analyze command history to identify which skills work, which fail, and where to improve.
argument-hint	[time period]
category	analysis
version	2.0.0
user-invocable	true

MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke /agent-workflow — it contains workflow principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no workflow context exists yet, you MUST run /teach-maestro first.

---

Analyze the Maestro audit trail and decision log to produce a skill-effectiveness scorecard. This tells you which commands work, which fail, and where your workflow needs attention.

Data Sources

Read these files from the project root:

1. .maestro/audit.jsonl — every command invocation with duration, cost, and outcome
2. .maestro/decisions.jsonl — decisions made with outcomes and next steps

If neither file exists, respond: "No audit data found. Run commands with Maestro to start tracking, then come back."

Analysis Dimensions

1. Usage Frequency

• Which commands run most/least?
• Are any commands never used? (candidates for removal)

2. Completion Rate

• What % of invocations complete successfully?
• Which commands fail most often?

3. Command Flow

• What are the most common command sequences (A → B)?
• Which commands lead to follow-ups vs. abandonment?
• Abandonment rate per command (no follow-up within 30 min)

4. Cost Distribution

• Total estimated cost across all commands
• Cost per command (average)
• Most/least expensive commands

5. Duration Analysis

• Average duration per command
• Outliers (unusually slow invocations)

Output Format

╔══════════════════════════════════════════╗
║          MAESTRO EFFECTIVENESS           ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Commands Run         __ (__ unique)      ║
║ Completion Rate      __%                 ║
║ Most Used            /_____ (__×)        ║
║ Most Abandoned       /_____ (__% ⚠️)     ║
║ Avg Duration         __s                 ║
║ Total Cost           ~$__.__             ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════╣
║           STRONGEST PIPELINES            ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ /_____ → /_____    __×                   ║
║ /_____ → /_____    __×                   ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════╣
║           COST PER COMMAND               ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ /_____    $__.__/run  ████░░  avg        ║
║ /_____    $__.__/run  █░░░░░  cheap      ║
║ /_____    $__.__/run  █████░  costly     ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════╝

INSIGHTS:
1. [Data-driven observation with recommended action]
2. [Data-driven observation with recommended action]
3. [Data-driven observation with recommended action]

Insights Rules

Every insight MUST:

• Reference specific data (e.g., "40% abandonment rate")
• Suggest a specific Maestro command to address it
• Distinguish correlation from causation

Reflection Checklist

• All 5 analysis dimensions covered
• Scorecard generated with real data
• Insights are data-driven, not speculative
• Cost estimates labeled as approximate (~)
• Recommended actions reference specific Maestro commands

Recommended Next Step

After reflecting, run /streamline to remove unused commands, or /refine on the most-abandoned command to improve its prompt quality.

NEVER:

• Require audit data to exist — degrade gracefully
• Invent metrics beyond what the logs contain
• Show cost data without the "estimate" disclaimer (~)
• Make judgments without evidence (say "100% completion rate" not "works great")
• Compare across projects — reflect is project-scoped