Version 1

# 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:** > > 1. The goal — are we solving the right problem? > 2. The approach — is the path we're on the best one? > 3. The assumptions — what are we taking for granted? > 4. 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`](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`](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`](references/cognitive_bias_canon.md) — 5 biases + recognition cues (7+ sources) - [`references/honest_output_discipline.md`](references/honest_output_discipline.md) — anti-manufactured-problems framing (7+ sources) - [`references/conversation_reflection_practice.md`](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`](../../../../megaprompts/02-reflect-megaprompt.md) **Build pattern:** Path B (direct conversion). Productivity light-prompt-flow sibling of capture.