agentleFS
OrionArchitektonOrionArchitekton/orion-skills/skills/learn-capture/SKILL.md

learn-capture

Skill2 starsChanged 12 days agoMITView on GitHub

Closing step after a task / review / incident: capture the accreted lessons (what was misunderstood, which assumptions changed, what would speed the next pass) and write them DURABLY: behavioral lessons to your agent memory (feedback-note style), repo/doctrine lessons to the repo's AGENTS.md or docs/. Use for "capture learnings", "what did we learn", "close the loop", or at the end of substantial work. Makes the manual feedback-note habit self-closing (the compound loop's 4th step).

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    After a review, PR merge, incident close, or any substantial task lands.

    line 22
  2. Very specific:

    When the user says "capture learnings", "what did we learn", "close the loop", "write it up" (for a lesson, not an incident.

    line 23
  3. Very specific:

    Do NOT capture what is already recorded (code structure, git history, an existing memory/AGENTS.md rule) or what only mattered to this one …

    line 28
  4. Distinctive:

    If all three: capture it. If it is a one-off or self-evident from the repo, skip it.

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    When in doubt between memory and AGENTS.md: behavioral/agent-facing → memory.

    line 50
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not restructure AGENTS.md or rewrite existing memory.

    line 75
  7. Distinctive:

    Never store secrets or PII in a lesson.

    line 77

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Learn Capture: the compound loop's closing step

Plan → work → review → capture. The first three steps solve today's task; this one makes the next task cheaper. It converts what the session learned into a durable artifact so a future instance does not re-derive or repeat it. This is the self-closing version of the manual feedback-note habit.

When to invoke

  • After a review, PR merge, incident close, or any substantial task lands.
  • When the user says "capture learnings", "what did we learn", "close the loop", "write it up" (for a lesson, not an incident; incidents use incident-as-code).
  • Proactively when the session surfaced a non-obvious correction: a wrong assumption, a gotcha, a decision-and-rationale, a repeated mistake.

Do NOT capture what is already recorded (code structure, git history, an existing memory/AGENTS.md rule) or what only mattered to this one conversation.

What makes a lesson worth capturing

A durable lesson is non-obvious, reusable, and actionable. Test each candidate:

  1. Would a fresh instance get this wrong without the note? (non-obvious)
  2. Will it recur on similar tasks? (reusable)
  3. Can the note change a future action? (actionable)

If all three: capture it. If it is a one-off or self-evident from the repo, skip it.

Where each lesson goes (route by scope)

Lesson scopeDestinationForm
How I (the agent) should work: corrections, confirmed approaches, gotchasyour agent's memory store (e.g. a feedback_*.md note + a one-line index pointer)the memory schema: fact + Why: + How to apply:
Repo/product behavior, conventions, constraints not derivable from codethat repo's AGENTS.md (or local CLAUDE.md)a terse rule under the right section
A resolved incident's root cause + fixdocs/solutions/<date>-<slug>.mduse incident-as-code instead
Project state / decisions for an ongoing arcyour project's state register / status docper that register's header

When in doubt between memory and AGENTS.md: behavioral/agent-facing → memory; contract/repo-facing that another contributor needs → AGENTS.md.

Process

  1. Reflect: in 2-4 bullets, name what changed this session: a wrong assumption corrected, a decision + its rationale, a gotcha hit, a faster path found.
  2. Filter: drop anything failing the three-question test above.
  3. Route: assign each surviving lesson a destination from the table.
  4. Write: durable, concise, second-person-actionable. For memory files follow the schema (frontmatter type: feedback|project|user|reference, body with Why: and How to apply:); link related notes with [[name]]; add the index pointer line. For AGENTS.md, add the minimal rule, do not restructure.
    • Confidence + scope (additive, optional). A NEW memory note MAY carry metadata.confidence (a float 0.0 to 1.0, your calibrated trust in the lesson) and metadata.scope (global, or a repo/project id when the lesson is repo-specific). These are optional calibration metadata a future promotion or review process can use to decide what graduates to wider-scoped guidance. OMITTING both is fine and is the legacy default: an unscored note is never auto-promoted. Do NOT back-fill existing notes.
  5. Confirm: list what you captured and where, in one line each.

Hard rails

  • Memory and AGENTS.md are authority surfaces: additive, minimal diffs only. Do not restructure AGENTS.md or rewrite existing memory; append or update one note.
  • Convert relative dates to absolute before writing.
  • Never store secrets or PII in a lesson.
  • A lesson is evidence-for-canon, not canon: if it would change doctrine, surface it for the operator rather than silently encoding a doctrine change.
  • One note per distinct lesson; do not batch unrelated lessons into one file.

Portability

Plain Markdown, tool-agnostic. Under other agent runtimes, write the same files via your runtime's file-write mechanism; the destinations and schema are identical; only the write mechanism differs.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.