The user has asked for a **retrospective**. You are suggesting improvements to the coding agent's **environment** to improve future runs.
## Steps
1. Call the Skill tool with `writing-for-agents` for the writing style guide.
2. Read the for the session the user specifies. This may mean searching through session logs on this machine. If the user doesn't specify a session, default to the current one.
3. Look for candidates for improvement in these categories.
- **Navigation**: how easy was it for the agent to find the right files? Are there between files? Would a **navigation pointer** make it easier? _Use when_ the session took a long time to find a piece of information.
- **Automated checks**: are there automated checks that could catch errors the agent made? Linting, typing, tests, filesystem linters? Read the repo's own check command first (its `package.json`/build-tool `lint`/`check` scripts, its CI workflow), so a check that already exists but is the finding, . A repo with no **guardrail** (no pre-commit hook and no CI job running its lint/typecheck/test command) is itself a finding: an un-linted repo is , . _Use when_ the agent made a mistake an automated check could have caught, or the repo has no guardrail at all.
- **Coding standards**: should the **reviewer agent** be given a new rule to enforce? Should an existing rule be removed or clarified? : a **mechanical** one (a fixed syntactic pattern, a banned API, an import shape, a file-location rule) : a custom rule in the repo's own linter, a new pre-commit hook, or a new CI job, . Default to building the check over writing the rule. Reserve `CODING_STANDARDS.md` for (cross-file consistency, "matches the surrounding style," anything no guardrail could ever substitute for). _Use when_ the reviewer agent failed to catch a mistake.
- **Global AGENTS.md**: are there any steering instructions that should be moved to coding standards (or automated checks) instead? _Use when_ the AGENTS.md file is particularly large - in the repo OR the user's global scope.
- **Tool economy**: did the agent make expensive tool calls that could be streamlined? Is there any custom tooling (CLI's, MCP's) that is particularly token-inefficient? _Use when_ the agent made an expensive tool call.
- **No-ops**: look for instructions in steering files that don't modify the agent's behavior. _Use when_ the steering files are large and unwieldy.
- **Information access**: look for opportunities to increase the agent's access to information. Teeing dev server logs, readonly access to third-party services. _Use when_ a crucial piece of information was not available to the agent.
4. Present these candidates to the user, .
## Reference
### Implementation vs Review
Remember that all work goes through two stages: implementation and review. The implementation agent has the most ****. They are responsible for exploration, writing code, and debugging failures.
The review agent has the least - it receives a diff, so no exploration needed. It often does not need to write code or debug.
This means that the review agent should be responsible for imposing coding standards, not the implementation agent.
### Files
You have access to several files in the repo:
- `CLAUDE.md`/`AGENTS.md`: these files are pushed to the context window of any agent working in this repo. They should be , usually only for **navigation pointers** to other files.
- `CODING_STANDARDS.md`: this file is read during review, not implementation. Add **navigation pointers** to docs folders if the standards file gets more than 1,000 lines long.
- Docs: use docs as references files, pointed to by other files. Look for existing docs before writing new ones.
- Skills: use skills for docs (since their description goes into the agent's context window), or for user-invoked commands. Follow the advice in the `writing-for-agents` skill.