<mission_control> <objective>Analyze the mistake, find the instruction that caused it, and patch the relevant file.</objective> <success_criteria>offending rule identified; atomic patch applied; user informed of the change</success_criteria> </mission_control>
Workflow
- •Detect: User correction ("No," "Wait," "Wrong," "Not what I meant")
- •Trace: Ask "Which instruction allowed this mistake?"
- •Project documentation? → Update the source
- •Skill workflow? → Edit the skill
- •Command logic? → Fix the command
- •Agent prompt? → Refine the agent
- •Identify the Gap: Why did the instruction fail? Was it missing, vague, or contradictory?
- •Patch: Apply targeted edit to the relevant file
- •Report: "I've updated [file] to ensure I [new behavior]."
Root Cause Mapping
| If the mistake reveals... | Target... |
|---|---|
| Missing or wrong project rule | Documentation, CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules/ |
| Wrong procedural pattern | Relevant skill in .claude/skills/ |
| Command logic issue | Command file in .claude/commands/ |
| Agent behavior problem | Agent config in .claude/agents/ |
| Hook or tool mismatch | Hook definition or tool schema |
Patching Principles
- •Be specific: Patch the exact instruction that failed, not surrounding content
- •Generalize: Extract principle from the specific mistake
- •Respect structure: Follow each file's existing conventions (XML tags, tables, etc.)
- •Place strategically: Put new constraints where they'll be noticed (file bottoms for recency)
<critical_constraint>
- •NEVER create new files for corrections; ALWAYS edit existing rules/skills/commands/agents.
- •Use the Delta Standard: Only add rules for things you actually got wrong.
- •Keep patches atomic. Change the logic, not the formatting.
- •If unsure where the rule belongs, trace from effect to cause before editing. </critical_constraint>