agentleFS
topprismdatatopprismdata/cultivating-ml-agent/skills/examples/claudeception/SKILL.md

claudeception

Skill5 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub

Extract reusable knowledge from work sessions into new Claude Code skills. Use when: (1) /claudeception command to review session, (2) "save this as a skill" or "extract a skill", (3) "what did we learn?", (4) After non-obvious debugging, workarounds, trial-and-error discovery, or counterintuitive solutions. Do NOT trigger for routine fixes or straightforward tasks with obvious solutions.

9 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

15 rules. 1 is common, 13 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 1

    Common

    Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 13

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Before creating, classify the knowledge:

    line 30
  2. Distinctive:

    Search existing skills for overlap across 5 dimensions:

    line 43
  3. Distinctive:

    Search the web when the topic involves specific technologies, frameworks, or APIs.

    line 65
  4. Distinctive:

    Use this template — adapt sections based on track:

    line 70
  5. Distinctive:

    Start with "Use when..."

    line 118
  6. Distinctive:

    After creating a skill, verify:

    line 126
  7. Distinctive:

    If the project has a CLAUDE.md, consider whether it should reference this skill category

    line 129
  8. Very specific:

    When /claudeception is invoked at session end:

    line 163
  9. Distinctive:

    After extracting skills, analyze the session's execution trajectory:

    line 173
  10. Distinctive:

    If Path Efficiency Analysis reveals a systemic issue (not just a one-off mistake), extract it as a skill with trigger conditions for future …

    line 188
  11. Distinctive:

    Before executing any non-trivial step during a session, briefly evaluate:

    line 193
  12. Distinctive:

    After getting intermediate results:

    line 201
  13. Distinctive:

    If a Self-Critique Catchpoint catches a risk that actually materialized, the insight is high-priority for extraction — it means the agent …

    line 208
  14. Common:

    After completing any significant task:

    line 214
  15. Distinctive:

    If yes to any of the first three, extract now.

    line 221

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 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

Claudeception

Continuous learning system that extracts reusable knowledge from work sessions into Claude Code skills. Each extracted skill makes future sessions smarter.

When to Extract

Extract when you encounter:

  1. Non-obvious solutions — Required >10 min investigation, not in docs
  2. Error resolution — Misleading error messages, non-obvious root causes
  3. Workaround discovery — Tool/framework limitations requiring experimentation
  4. Configuration insights — Project-specific setups differing from standard
  5. Trial-and-error success — Multiple approaches before finding what worked
  6. Self-critique catches — A predicted risk actually materialized (high-value signal)
  7. Path efficiency insights — A systemic execution pattern worth improving

Dual-Track Classification

Before creating, classify the knowledge:

TrackWhenTemplate sections
Bug fixDefect, failure, error resolutionProblem, Symptoms, Root Cause, Solution, Prevention
KnowledgeBest practice, pattern, workflow optimizationContext, Guidance, Why This Matters, When to Apply

This determines the skill's section structure.

Extraction Process

Step 1: Overlap Detection (BEFORE creating)

Search existing skills for overlap across 5 dimensions:

DimensionWhat to compare
Problem statementSame underlying issue?
Root causeSame technical cause?
Solution approachSame fix?
Referenced filesSame code paths?
Prevention rulesSame advice?

Scoring: Count matching dimensions.

OverlapAction
High (4-5 match)Update existing skill with fresher context
Moderate (2-3 match)Create new, add See also: cross-reference
Low (0-1 match)Create new normally

Why: Two skills describing the same problem will drift apart. Update rather than duplicate.

Step 2: Research (When Appropriate)

Search the web when the topic involves specific technologies, frameworks, or APIs. Skip for project-specific internal patterns. Cite sources in a References section.

Step 3: Structure the Skill

Use this template — adapt sections based on track:

---
name: [descriptive-kebab-case-name]
description: |
  [Trigger conditions ONLY. Start with "Use when...". Include specific symptoms,
  error messages, contexts. NEVER summarize the skill's workflow here.]
---

# [Skill Name]

## Problem / Context
[Bug track: What broke. Knowledge track: What situation prompted this.]

## Symptoms / When to Apply
[Bug track: Observable symptoms. Knowledge track: Conditions where this applies.]

## Solution / Guidance
[Step-by-step fix or recommended practice with code examples.]

## Prevention / Why This Matters
[Bug track: How to avoid recurrence. Knowledge track: Impact of following/not following.]

## Notes
[Caveats, edge cases, See also: links to related skills]

## References
[Optional: URLs to official docs or resources]

Step 4: Write Effective Descriptions (CSO)

Description = Triggering conditions ONLY. Never summarize the workflow.

Why: Testing revealed that descriptions summarizing workflow cause agents to follow the description instead of reading the full skill. A description saying "code review between tasks" caused agents to do ONE review, when the skill required two.

# BAD: Summarizes workflow — agent shortcuts to this
description: Use when executing plans — dispatches subagent per task with code review

# GOOD: Trigger conditions only — agent reads the full skill
description: Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks

Format rules:

  • Start with "Use when..."
  • Include specific symptoms, error messages, contexts
  • Keep under 500 characters
  • Third person (injected into system prompt)
  • Include technology names if skill is technology-specific

Step 5: Discoverability Check

After creating a skill, verify:

  1. The description contains keywords someone would search for
  2. The name is descriptive (verb-first preferred: fixing-X, not X-fix)
  3. If the project has a CLAUDE.md, consider whether it should reference this skill category

Step 6: Save

  • Project-specific: .claude/skills/[skill-name]/SKILL.md
  • User-wide: ~/.claude/skills/[skill-name]/SKILL.md
  • Heavy reference (>100 lines) goes in references/ subdirectory
  • Reusable scripts go in scripts/ subdirectory

Quality Gates

Before finalizing:

  • Description is trigger-only, no workflow summary (CSO)
  • Solution verified to work (not theoretical)
  • Specific enough to be actionable
  • General enough to be reusable
  • No sensitive information
  • Overlap check completed (Step 1)
  • No duplicate of existing skill or official docs

Anti-Patterns

Anti-patternWhy it's bad
Over-extractionMundane solutions don't need skills
Vague description"Helps with React" won't surface when needed
Workflow in descriptionAgent shortcuts, skips reading full skill
Unverified solutionOnly extract what actually worked
DuplicationTwo skills on same topic drift apart over time
Narrative storytelling"In session 2025-10-03 we found..." — too specific
Multi-language examplesOne excellent example beats 5 mediocre ones

Retrospective Mode

When /claudeception is invoked at session end:

  1. Review conversation for extractable knowledge
  2. List candidates with brief justifications
  3. Prioritize highest-value, most reusable (1-3 per session)
  4. Extract using the process above
  5. Summarize what was created and why
  6. Path Efficiency Analysis (enhanced retrospective):

Path Efficiency Analysis

After extracting skills, analyze the session's execution trajectory:

Path Efficiency Questions:
  1. Recovery Rate: Did I recover from errors efficiently?
     - Count error paths that led to correct recovery vs total errors
  2. Repetitiveness: Did I repeat any failed approach?
     - Flag any approach tried more than once without modification
  3. Most Expensive Wrong Path: What was the costliest detour?
     - Could it have been avoided with a Self-Critique Checkpoint?
     - What early warning signal was missed?
  4. Simulate-Before-Execute: Would pre-simulation have helped?
     - Identify decisions where simulating 2-3 options would have saved time

If Path Efficiency Analysis reveals a systemic issue (not just a one-off mistake), extract it as a skill with trigger conditions for future sessions.

Self-Critique Checkpoint (Proactive Evolution)

Before executing any non-trivial step during a session, briefly evaluate:

1. "What is the theoretical basis for this approach?"
2. "What are the top 3 risks?"
3. "What signal would tell me this is wrong BEFORE I finish?"

After getting intermediate results:

4. "Did any predicted risks materialize?"
5. "Is the intermediate result consistent with expectations?"
6. "Should I continue or pivot?"

If a Self-Critique Catchpoint catches a risk that actually materialized, the insight is high-priority for extraction — it means the agent predicted correctly but didn't act on its own prediction.

Self-Check Prompts

After completing any significant task:

  • "Did I just spend meaningful time investigating something?"
  • "Would future-me benefit from having this documented?"
  • "Was the solution non-obvious from documentation alone?"
  • "Did I simulate before executing? If not, would it have helped?"
  • "What was my most expensive wrong path this session?"

If yes to any of the first three, extract now.

Integration with Other Skills

SkillRelationship
three-layer-wisdom-extractionOperates ABOVE claudeception — uses claudeception output as Layer 2 input
skill-refreshMaintains claudeception-created skills over time
skill-creatorFor formal eval/benchmark testing of skills
agent-nurture-frameworkProvides the Part 9 enhancement context for Self-Critique and Path Efficiency

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.