claudemd-review

Note

Generated from core/skills/claudemd-review/SKILL.md — edit that file, not this page.

CLAUDE.md Review

A quick self-check, not a pipeline: read back over this conversation, find places where the human corrected something a project rule should have already covered, and propose a small, bounded edit. Nothing here gets applied without the human reviewing it first.

Process

1. Scan this conversation for corrections, “no, actually”, or repeated clarifications — the same signal skill-tuning-loop’s Mine stage looks for in past sessions, except you already have the transcript in context.
2. For each one, classify it:
   • Already covered, ignored anyway — the relevant CLAUDE.md already says this; the fix is emphasis or clarity, not new content.
   • Genuinely missing — no existing rule addresses it; a new line would have prevented the correction.
   • One-off — specific to this task, not a durable project convention. Don’t propose an edit for this; CLAUDE.md is for what generalizes.
3. Propose a MINIMAL diff for the “genuinely missing” and “ignored anyway” cases only. Match the file’s existing voice and structure — don’t restructure sections that aren’t implicated. State the rule concretely (name the specific convention), not “follow best practices.”
4. Present the diff, don’t apply it. Show the human the proposed addition and why (quote the correction that motivated it). They edit the file, not you — CLAUDE.md is read on every session for every task in the project; a bad edit here is a bad edit everywhere.

When to reach for skill-tuning-loop instead

This skill only ever sees one conversation, so it can mistake a one-off correction for a durable pattern. If the same friction keeps showing up across sessions and you want a validated, evidence-gated proposal rather than a quick check, that’s what skill-tuning-loop is for.