reflect-and-improve — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited reflect-and-improve (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
A self-improvement loop for Claude Code. After significant work, this skill reviews what happened — errors made, corrections received, implicit preferences — and writes confirmed learnings to persistent memory files. Future sessions start smarter.
Run these 6 steps in order. Skip any step with no findings.
Scan recent actions for signals worth learning from.
Look for:
Output format:
## Review Checkpoint — [date]
- [RETRY] Ran tests 3 times before realizing venv wasn't activated
- [CORRECTION] User said "use pnpm, not npm" — package manager preference
- [DENIED] User denied `git push` — wants to review before pushing
- [ABANDONED] Started editing wrong file, had to switchIf 0 signals found, skip to step 6.
Track which operations the user approved or denied.
Write to: permissions.md in the project memory directory
Format:
# Permission Patterns
Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD
## Approved
- git commit — always approved
- npm install — approved for this project
## Denied
- git push — user wants to review first
- modifying .env — never touch without asking
## Implicit
- if user asks to "set up tests", creating test files is implicitly approvedRules:
Classify errors and record the fix.
Error categories:
| Category | Example |
|---|---|
| Wrong assumption | Assumed Python 3.10 but project uses 3.8 |
| Missing context | Didn't read package.json before running npm commands |
| Tool misuse | Used cat instead of Read tool |
| Wrong file | Edited the test file instead of the source file |
| Stale knowledge | Used deprecated API method |
| Ordering error | Ran tests before installing dependencies |
Write to: errors.md in the project memory directory
Format:
# Error Catalog
Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD
## [date] Wrong assumption — Python version
- What happened: Used match/case syntax, but project requires Python 3.8
- Root cause: Didn't check pyproject.toml before writing code
- Prevention: Before writing Python code, check version requirementsRules:
Capture implicit preferences revealed through behavior and corrections.
Signal types:
Write to: preferences.md in the project memory directory
Rules:
Write confirmed learnings to persistent memory files.
What qualifies:
What doesn't qualify:
Process:
Identify moments where the experience could be smoother.
Look for:
Output format:
## Friction Audit — [date]
- User corrected package manager twice -> saved to preferences.md
- Had to re-read config file I should have cached -> read it first next timeFor each friction point, identify if there's a systemic fix and apply it.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.