lessons
Skill2 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
The reinforcement loop. After the user finalizes a piece, diff the machine's draft against the published version, abstract generalizable lessons from what the user changed, get explicit approval, and append to content-lessons.md so the machine never repeats the mistake. Trigger phrases include "run the lessons loop", "log lessons", "/lessons".
9 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- OpenSWE/log-decisionstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- swe-workflow/log-decisionstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkittheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- OpenSWE/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- kev-hu/ai-toolkittheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- 3xian/lessonstheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use distill-prompt, herdr-advisor and 1 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
OpenSWESkilldistill-prompt
Distill this conversation's underlying goal into one reusable prompt that reaches the same final outcome in a fresh session.
Also in 3 projects that use this
OpenSWESkillherdr-advisor
Pair a Herdr worker with one advisor, a stronger model that answers questions on the user's behalf to unblock the worker and leads it to its next task, by accepting its prompt suggestion or sending it text: a worker "still waiting on your go" gets `go`. Invoked by the user (`/herdr-advisor`), and by you in one case only, before the first step of the work and whatever the plan's size, when a grilling session has ended with its frontier empty, the user's confirmation has you execute the plan now, no advisor pair is live, and the confirmation did not decline one.
Also in 3 projects that use this
gootfSkilllog-decisions
Append-only DECISIONS.md journal at the project root for consequential calls the spec didn't settle. Use when you (or the user) make a non-trivial call worth a durable record — an ambiguity you interpreted, a tradeoff, a deviation, or a hard-to-undo action.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 9
- sampleXbro/agentsmesh★ 27same name
- moberghr/mtk-agent-toolkit★ 9same name
- OpenSWE/log-decisions★ 4same name
- OpenSWE/skills★ 4same name
- swe-workflow/log-decisions★ 4same name
- apinizer/agentnizer-cookbook★ 2same name
- ChewbaccaRoars/pathfinder-skills★ 2same name
- 3xian/lessons★ 1same name
- kev-hu/ai-toolkit★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- content-machineSkill
- content-setupSkill
- draftSkill
- interviewSkill
- oracleSkill
- repurposeSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 40
Add approved lessons to content-lessons.md under their category, dated.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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.
Files
Lessons — the loop that makes the machine yours
The lessons loop is why the machine improves with use where generic AI writing doesn't: every edit the user makes is a training signal, captured as prose rules the drafting step must obey forever after. Personal folder resolution: ~/.content-machine/redirect.md first line if present, else ~/.content-machine/.
Inputs
- The machine's draft (from
drafts/) - The final version the user actually published or approved (pasted, or edited in place)
- Any verbal feedback the user gave along the way ("this line is AI-cringey")
Steps
1. Diff
Compare draft vs. final, sentence by sentence. Collect: deletions, rewrites, reorderings, additions.
2. Abstract
Turn each meaningful change into a generalizable rule, categorized:
- Tone — register errors ("too breathless", "false modesty")
- Structure & flow — ordering, pacing, where the piece sagged
- Language — specific words/constructions the user removes on sight
- Format — platform-specific habits (fold behavior, line breaks, emoji)
The abstraction test: would this rule have prevented the edit AND apply to future pieces? One-off factual fixes are not lessons.
❌ Not a lesson: "Changed 'six months' to '6 months'." (one-off) ❌ Too vague: "Make it sound more natural." (unenforceable) ✅ A lesson: "TONE — Never use the setup-punchline construction 'They're both right — and that's exactly the problem.' User flags this cadence as AI-cringe. State the tension directly instead."
3. Approve — never auto-append
Present the proposed lessons as a numbered list. The user approves, rejects, or edits each. Only approved lessons are written. A lessons file polluted with wrong rules degrades every future draft.
4. Append
Add approved lessons to content-lessons.md under their category, dated. Check for contradictions with existing lessons — if a new lesson contradicts an old one, surface the conflict and ask which wins; never hold both.
5. Confirm
Report what was appended and the new lesson count per category.
Gate
The loop is complete only when: diff performed, lessons proposed with categories, user explicitly approved, file appended, contradictions resolved. If the user gave feedback mid-draft ("that hook is cheesy") that didn't make it into a lesson, ask about it here — spoken feedback that evaporates is the loop's failure mode.
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
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.

