retro-promote
Skill2 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use after a task ends with failed checks, when the user asks for a retro, or when `saw retro` lists open proposals. Turns a repeated failure into one enforceable fix with an eval case, and gets it approved before it lands.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- global/CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- about-meSkill
- routerSkill
- saw-settingsSkill
- workflow-setupSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 7
Run saw retro. It writes a proposal in docs/proposals/ for each check that failed in retro.repeat_threshold or more tasks (default 2).
- Very specific: line 10
Read the failing logs in .saw/logs/ and pick one:
- Distinctive: line 13
missing tool: no command or check exists for this
- Distinctive: line 17
Write it under Root cause, citing the log lines.
- Distinctive: line 20
test or lint rule, with an error message that says how to fix it
- Very specific: line 26
Add evals/regress-<check>/ that reproduces the failure (see evals/README.md).
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
1. Find what repeats
Run saw retro. It writes a proposal in docs/proposals/ for each check that failed in retro.repeat_threshold or more tasks (default 2). A failure seen once is not a pattern: leave it.
2. Root cause (one per proposal)
Read the failing logs in .saw/logs/ and pick one:
- missing context: the agent didn't know a fact that was written down somewhere
- poor instruction: a skill, playbook or AGENTS.md line was unclear or wrong
- missing tool: no command or check exists for this
- missing test: nothing caught it before review
- reasoning error: the facts were there and the agent got it wrong
Write it under Root cause, citing the log lines.
3. Fix, most enforceable first
- test or lint rule, with an error message that says how to fix it
- hook
- skill or playbook edit
- one AGENTS.md line (last resort: it costs tokens in every session)
4. Prove it
- Add
evals/regress-<check>/that reproduces the failure (seeevals/README.md). saw eval --save-baselinebefore the fix,saw evalafter. The fix lands only if no case gets worse.- Record both results under Eval case.
5. Approval
Under autonomy.actions.self_improve = "propose" (the default), show the user the proposal and wait for a yes. Never edit global files (edit_global) or commit without their go-ahead. When it merges, set status: promoted and promoted: <date>; the dashboard's promotion_effect panel then tracks whether the failure stopped. A rejected fix gets status: rejected and a reason.
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.

