Reflect

# 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.