# Reflect > | - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-crewforth-crewforth-reflect` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [crewforth](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/crewforth) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [AI & ML](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/ai-and-ml) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [crewforth](https://github.com/crewforth) - **Source:** https://github.com/crewforth/crewforth/tree/main/kit/skills/reflect - **Website:** https://crewforth.com/ ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-crewforth-crewforth-reflect ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Reflect — step back and audit the work, not just the code Trigger phrases: "reflect", "retro", "retrospective", "what did we miss", "step back", "introspect" ## When A nontrivial chunk of work just finished (a feature, a plan, a debugging session) and it's worth a deliberate step back **before** committing or moving on. This is the meta-cognitive counterpart to [[iterate]]: iterate drives a change *to* its exit test; reflect asks whether the exit test — and the approach behind it — was even the right one. Skip it for a one-line, unambiguous change; there's nothing to reflect on. ## Measure first, then remember Run **`bash .claude/hooks/session-stats.sh`** before answering anything below, and open the pass with what it reports. A retro built only on recall is an interview with the least reliable witness in the room: the model reconstructs a tidy story from a context that has already been summarised, and the stretches where it span on a failing approach are exactly the ones it remembers least. The script counts what actually happened — prompts, tool calls, failing loops, near-duplicate prompts, interrupts, auto-compactions. Treat each ⚠️ as a **question to answer in the pass**, not a verdict: a runaway loop asks *what assumption kept failing*; a repeated prompt asks *what context never landed*; an interrupt asks *where intent diverged*; an auto compaction asks *what state was silently dropped*. If the numbers and your recollection disagree, the numbers are the record. If the script is missing (a plugin install has no `.claude/hooks/`), say the retro is recall-based — do not present recall as measurement. ## The pass Ask each question honestly and write the answer, not a reassurance: 1. **Unverified assumptions** — what did I take for granted that I never checked? Name each one and whether it was actually confirmed (read the code / ran the flow) or just assumed. 2. **What got skipped** — an edge case, an error path, a test, a doc update, a security/privacy angle. What was silently dropped, and was that a conscious trade-off or an oversight? 3. **Right approach?** — with hindsight, is this the direction we'd still pick? Did scope creep in? Is there a simpler path we walked past ([[code-review]] altitude: could 200 lines be 50)? 4. **Evidence gap** — which claims of "done" / "works" rest on having *observed* behavior vs. on inference? An unobserved "it works" is a finding (see [[iterate]] / verify: drive the real flow). 5. **What I'd tell the next session** — the one thing a fresh context most needs to know (feeds [[handoff]]). ## Guardrails - **Findings, not code.** Reflect surfaces gaps; the relevant specialist fixes them (a found gap re-enters [[iterate]] or the author agent). It changes nothing itself. - **Honest, not performative.** A retro that only confirms good work is a failed retro. If nothing is found, say specifically *why* you're confident (what was verified), don't just assert it. - **Bounded.** One pass, concrete findings, then act or close — not an open rumination loop. - **Token discipline** ([[token-budget]]): a short ranked findings list to the main thread; detail to a file. ## DoD (this skill's contribution) - `session-stats.sh` was run and every ⚠️ it raised is answered — or its absence is stated. - Assumptions are labeled verified vs. assumed; unverified ones are flagged, not buried. - Skipped items and any scope creep are named explicitly. - Every "done/works" claim is traced to observed evidence or marked as inference. - Findings are actionable (each maps to a fix, a follow-up, or an accepted trade-off). ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [crewforth](https://github.com/crewforth) - **Source:** [crewforth/crewforth](https://github.com/crewforth/crewforth) - **License:** MIT - **Homepage:** https://crewforth.com/ Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-crewforth-crewforth-reflect - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/crewforth - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.