reflect
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
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.
172 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphustheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Loner1024/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- caidanw/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecodetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- endqwerty/endstacktheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- tristanphvn/keeltheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use poteto-help, setup-pstack and 10 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.
ianclearySkillpoteto-help
Guides users through pstack setup, /poteto-mode, and picking the skill, playbook, or principle for a task. Type /poteto-help with a question.
Also in 14 projects that use this
bnemaSkillsetup-pstack
Configure which Pi models pstack uses per role. Detects available provider/model specs and writes pstack's user configuration. Use for /setup-pstack, "configure pstack models", or changing pstack model choices.
Also in 24 projects that use this
eryzerzSkillmake-bot-ui
Use when building a custom UI (page, dashboard, buttons) that should wake a Grok Bot over a webhook, when the user must provide a webhook sender key, or when exposing that UI on Tailscale.
Also in 19 projects that use this
ianclearySkillprinciple-explain-the-number
Apply before you trust, report, or act on a number you measured: a speedup, a regression, a throughput, a latency, or an eval result. Find what limits it, and rule out that it measured something other than the work you think.
Also in 26 projects that use this
jaydubya818Skillautomate-me
Use when the user wants working preferences captured in a reusable mode skill.
Also in 39 projects that use this
jaydubya818Skillpoteto-mode
Use when non-trivial work should follow the smallest rigorous Jstack workflow.
Also in 27 projects that use this
- +6 more from jaydubya818
Other versions172 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18100% same
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 1
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 290% same
Wrote their own version · 169
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claude-sisyphus★ 41ksame name
- Yeachan-Heo/oh-my-claudecode★ 41ksame name
- github/gh-aw★ 5.6ksame name
- backnotprop/pstack★ 3.8ksame name
- github/squad★ 3.4ksame name
- rilldata/rill★ 3ksame name
- microsoft/waza★ 1.5ksame name
- llama-farm/llamafarm★ 837same name
- haddock-development/claude-reflect-system★ 373same name
- egregore-labs/egregore★ 293same name
159 more not listed
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 repository84 other files it gives its agents.
- api-design-reviewerSkill
- api-test-suite-builderSkill
- ask-mattSkill
- aws-solution-architectSkill
- captureSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- ci-cd-pipeline-builderSkill
- cloud-securitySkill
- codebase-designSkill
- codebase-onboardingSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- context-compressSkill
- context-modeSkill
- database-designerSkill
- database-schema-designerSkill
- dependency-auditorSkill
- diagnosing-bugsSkill
- domain-modelingSkill
- env-secrets-managerSkill
- finish-branchSkill
- firecrawlSkill
- focused-fixSkill
- frontend-designSkill
- get-shit-doneSkill
- git-guardrails-claude-codeSkill
- git-worktree-managerSkill
- git-worktreesSkill
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- grill-with-docsSkill
- handoffSkill
- implementSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- incident-commanderSkill
- incident-responseSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- memSkill
- migration-architectSkill
- monorepo-navigatorSkill
- observability-designerSkill
- performance-profilerSkill
- playwright-testingSkill
- ponytail-auditSkill
- ponytail-debtSkill
- ponytail-gainSkill
- ponytail-helpSkill
- ponytail-reviewSkill
- ponytailSkill
- prompt-engineeringSkill
- prototypeSkill
- pr-review-expertSkill
- rag-architectSkill
- red-teamSkill
- resolving-merge-conflictsSkill
- root-cause-tracingSkill
- runbook-generatorSkill
- self-evalSkill
- senior-architectSkill
- senior-backendSkill
- senior-devopsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 161 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 39
When you detect an implicit trigger, don't auto-invoke — ask the user if they want to step back.
- Distinctive: line 43
Halt the current thread: Don't continue execution of the in-progress task.
- Distinctive: line 135
Every run ends with one of three directional recommendations:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 161 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
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.
See references/cognitive_bias_canon.md for the full canon.
5. Contextual Alignment
- Does the direction serve the user's actual goals (as known from context)?
- Are external factors being ignored?
- Is this the best use of the user's time and energy right now?
- Connection to other known projects or priorities?
Tone and Format Rules
The skill must produce:
- Flowing prose — no headers, no bullet lists, no structured-report formatting
- Tight but thorough — neither a one-liner nor a wall of text
- Direct critique when warranted — with specific evidence from the conversation
- Validation when warranted — with specific reasoning for why the path is solid
- No vague reassurance — "looks good!" without reasoning is rejected
- No manufactured problems — when the path is genuinely solid, say so with specific reasons; don't invent issues
See references/honest_output_discipline.md for the anti-manufactured-problems framing.
Closing Recommendation (Mandatory)
Every run ends with one of three directional recommendations:
| Recommendation | When | Format |
| Continue | Path is solid | "Continue. {specific reasoning for why}." |
| Pivot to {X} | Drift has occurred OR better path surfaced | "Pivot toward {X}, away from {what to drop}. {specific evidence}." |
| Pause for {Q} | A specific question needs answering before continuing | "Pause for {Q}. Without answering this, the next step risks {specific cost}." |
The closing is always specific — never "you should think more about this" or "consider your options."
Error Handling
| Situation | Behavior |
| Conversation is very short (no real context to reassess) | Acknowledge limitation, ask user what they want reassessed (Q1 fires) |
| Current direction is genuinely solid | State this clearly with reasoning; don't manufacture problems |
| User invokes mid-task with no clear question | Default to macro perspective + bias check; offer to dig deeper |
| Implicit trigger seems possible but unclear | Don't invoke proactively; ask user if they want to step back |
Tooling
| Script | Role |
scripts/bias_pattern_detector.py | Scan conversation text for patterns indicative of each of the 5 biases |
scripts/conversation_depth_analyzer.py | Count turns + detect implicit-trigger signals (10+ detail turns, frustration markers) |
scripts/directional_recommendation_validator.py | Verify output ends with Continue / Pivot / Pause + specific reasoning |
References
references/cognitive_bias_canon.md— 5 biases + recognition cues (7+ sources)references/honest_output_discipline.md— anti-manufactured-problems framing (7+ sources)references/conversation_reflection_practice.md— Schön reflective-practice canon (7+ sources)
Anti-Patterns To Reject
- Hardcoded user names or specific domain references
- Structured-report output (headers, bullet lists) when prose is required
- Manufactured problems when things are actually fine
- Vague reassurance ("looks good!") instead of specific reasoning
- Reassessing only recent turns instead of the full conversation
- Skipping the closing directional recommendation
- Continuing the in-progress task while "reflecting on the side"
Version: 1.0.0
Source spec: megaprompts/02-reflect-megaprompt.md
Build pattern: Path B (direct conversion). Productivity light-prompt-flow sibling of capture.
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.

