continuous-learning
Use when reviewing learned patterns from recent sessions, processing pending observations, or evolving repeated behaviors into reusable skills, commands, or agents.
Best use case
continuous-learning is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Use when reviewing learned patterns from recent sessions, processing pending observations, or evolving repeated behaviors into reusable skills, commands, or agents.
Teams using continuous-learning should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/continuous-learning/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How continuous-learning Compares
| Feature / Agent | continuous-learning | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Use when reviewing learned patterns from recent sessions, processing pending observations, or evolving repeated behaviors into reusable skills, commands, or agents.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Continuous Learning — Instinct-Based Architecture
## Objective
Turn session observations into reusable knowledge through atomic instincts — small learned behaviors with confidence scoring that persist across sessions. Project-scoped by default so React patterns stay in React projects and Python conventions stay in Python projects.
## When to Activate
- Reviewing pending instincts after a session of work
- Processing recent observations into named patterns
- Evolving repeated behaviors into full skills, commands, or agents
- Tuning confidence thresholds for learned behaviors
- Promoting a project-scoped instinct to global scope
## The Instinct Model
An instinct is a small learned behavior:
```yaml
---
id: prefer-functional-style
trigger: "when writing new functions"
confidence: 0.7
domain: "code-style"
source: "session-observation"
scope: project
project_id: "a1b2c3d4e5f6"
project_name: "my-react-app"
---
# Prefer Functional Style
## Action
Use functional patterns over classes when appropriate.
## Evidence
- Observed 5 instances of functional pattern preference
- User corrected class-based approach to functional
```
**Properties:**
- **Atomic** — one trigger, one action
- **Confidence-weighted** — 0.3 = tentative, 0.9 = near certain
- **Domain-tagged** — code-style, testing, git, debugging, workflow
- **Evidence-backed** — tracks observations that produced it
- **Scope-aware** — `project` (default) or `global`
## Process — Extracting an Instinct (the `/learn` loop)
Run this in-session; don't defer the whole judgment to the reference files. The references explain the storage model — these thresholds decide what becomes an instinct.
1. **Read the observation pool.** Pull from the project's `observations.jsonl` (see `references/architecture.md` for paths). Each row is a tool call with inputs/outputs/timestamps.
2. **Cluster by candidate pattern.** Group observations that share a trigger ("editing a test file", "writing a new function", "before a commit").
3. **Apply the extraction threshold.** A cluster only becomes an instinct when BOTH hold:
- **≥3 observations** supporting the same action, AND
- the observations span **≥2 distinct event types** (e.g., a tool-use pattern *and* a user correction; not 3 identical auto-logged edits). Single-event-type repetition is a habit of the tooling, not a learned preference.
- **One exception:** an explicit user correction ("no, always do X instead") is worth ~3 observations on its own — a single correction can seed a tentative instinct.
4. **Assign a confidence tier** (mirrors `references/scope-and-confidence.md`):
- **0.3 (tentative)** — 3 observations, one event type, or a single user correction. Suggested, not enforced.
- **0.5 (moderate)** — 3-4 observations across ≥2 event types. Applied when relevant.
- **0.7 (strong)** — 5+ observations across ≥2 event types, no contradicting evidence. Auto-approved for application.
- **0.9 (near-certain)** — 8+ consistent observations, or 0.7 reinforced by an explicit user confirmation. Core behavior.
- Each contradicting observation drops confidence one tier; two contradictions in a row retire the instinct.
5. **Pick scope.** Default `project`. Promote to `global` only per the Scope Decision Guide in the reference. Security, git, and tool-workflow patterns are global; language/framework/file-structure/style patterns stay project-scoped.
6. **Write the instinct** in the model shape above, with the `Evidence` block citing the observation count and the distinct event types that produced it.
7. **Surface for approval** — never activate without explicit user sign-off (see Never list). Below 0.7, present as a suggestion; at/above 0.7, present as auto-approvable but still confirm on first activation.
Below threshold (1-2 observations, or repetition within a single event type) → leave it in the pool. Don't manufacture an instinct from thin evidence; that's the noise this loop exists to filter out.
## Commands
| Command | Purpose |
|---------|---------|
| `/learn` | Analyze current session and extract patterns as instincts |
| `/evolve` | Cluster related instincts into skills/commands/agents |
| `/instinct-status` | Show all instincts (project + global) with confidence |
| `/instinct-export` | Export instincts (filterable by scope/domain) |
| `/instinct-import` | Import instincts with scope control |
## References
For deeper detail, see:
- `references/architecture.md` — observation flow, project detection, hooks, file structure
- `references/scope-and-confidence.md` — confidence tiers, scope decision guide, promotion rules, privacy
## Never
- Never activate instincts without explicit user approval
- Never mix project-scoped instincts across projects
- Never create instincts from one-time events (API outages, typos)
- Never export raw observations — only instincts (patterns)Related Skills
strategy-skeptic
Use when /growth reaches the strategy debate phase — argues AGAINST marketing strategy, finds weak positioning, audience gaps, flawed assumptions.
strategy-judge
Use when /growth strategy debate needs adjudication — rules on each item after reading blind Advocate and Skeptic cases. Approve, block, or flag.
strategy-advocate
Use when /growth reaches the strategy debate phase — argues FOR marketing strategy artifacts, defends quality, feasibility, and effectiveness in blind debate.
review-wordpress
Use when reviewing WordPress plugin or theme code for WP coding standards (WPCS), security (nonces, sanitization, escaping), hook naming, text domains, or plugin architecture.
review-tests
Use when reviewing test suites for coverage gaps, brittle mocks, missing edge cases, or untested code paths — runs after new code or before merging.
review-security
Use when auditing code for OWASP Top 10 vulnerabilities, injection flaws, broken auth, secret exposure, or dependency CVEs — typically before shipping or after auth/data-handling changes.
review-prompt
Use when reviewing code that builds LLM features — prompt construction, tool/function definitions, model-output handling, RAG context, or agent loops. Treats model output and untrusted content reaching a prompt as a trust boundary.
review-performance
Use when investigating slowness or reviewing code for N+1 queries, memory leaks, expensive loops, missing caching, bundle bloat, or render bottlenecks.
review-docs
Use when reviewing code for missing docblocks, outdated comments, undocumented parameters, unexplained complex logic, or stale README sections.
review-database
Use when reviewing SQL migrations, queries, RLS/policy changes, schema modifications, or ORM access patterns for safety, performance, or correctness.
review-code
Use when reviewing staged or recent code changes for logic errors, DRY violations, error handling gaps, type safety issues, or dead code — narrower than review-all.
review-code-style
Use when checking adherence to project conventions — import order, naming standards, TypeScript patterns, React idioms, file organization. Not formatting (use a linter).