Forging Skills

Prevents skill atrophy by periodically halting for user code writing and review.

Core Philosophy

The sharpest sword is forged through use, not observation.

Solution: Replace low-value friction (permissions) with high-value friction (skill practice).

The Three Forge Gates

Gate 1: Code Review Halt

Trigger: Every 15-25 operations (randomised)

Protocol:

[FORGE: CODE REVIEW]

AskUserQuestion:
  Header: "Review"
  Question: "Review this code. What does it do? Identify any issues."
  Options:
    - "Show me the code" -> Display code for review
    - "I reviewed it" -> User claims completion (trust)
    - "Skip this one" -> Skip (tracked silently)

If "Show me the code":

1. •Display the most recent significant code change
2. •Follow-up: "What does this code do? Any bugs or improvements?"
3. •Validate understanding (acknowledge, not grade)

Gate 2: User Write Halt (Primary Skill Forge)

Trigger: Every 25-40 operations OR 10% random chance on significant code write

Protocol:

[FORGE: YOUR TURN]

AskUserQuestion:
  Header: "Your Turn"
  Question: "Time to write code. I'll describe WHAT, you write HOW."
  Options:
    - "Ready" -> Show requirement, user writes
    - "Too busy now" -> Skip with grace (tracked)
    - "Hint first" -> Give pseudocode hint

Task Selection:

1. •Extract a discrete function/component from current work
2. •Complexity appropriate to senior level (Level 2-3 default)
3. •Provide: function signature, input/output types, description
4. •Do NOT provide: implementation

Validation Flow:

1. •User submits code via message
2. •Evaluate: correctness, edge cases, style
3. •Responses:
   • •Correct: "Excellent. [specific praise]. Integrating your code."
   • •Close: "Almost. [specific issue]. Try again or want the solution?"
   • •Wrong: "Not quite. [explanation]. [hint]. Try again?"

Gate 3: Architecture Decision Halt

Trigger: Before any multi-file refactor or new component creation

Protocol:

[FORGE: ARCHITECT]

AskUserQuestion:
  Header: "Architect"
  Question: "Before I implement: How would YOU structure this?"
  Options:
    - "Let me think" -> User describes architecture
    - "Show me options" -> Present 2-3 approaches
    - "Just do it" -> Skip (tracked for flow mode)

Complexity Levels

Default: Level 2-3 for senior engineers

Adaptive: If accuracy consistently high, increase. If struggling, decrease.

AskUserQuestion Patterns

All forge interactions use the AskUserQuestion tool.

Bidirectional Pattern

Anti-Patterns Avoided

• •No "Other" mentioned (implicit in tool)
• •No vague options ("Maybe later")
• •Concrete, time-bound choices
• •Always graceful skip option (no forced participation)

State Tracking

Track silently across session:

{
  "operations_since_last_forge": 0,
  "reviews_completed": 0,
  "reviews_skipped": 0,
  "writes_completed": 0,
  "writes_skipped": 0,
  "user_accuracy": 0.0,
  "current_complexity": 2
}

No judgment on skips. Skips are data, not failure.

Task Extraction Rules

When extracting a write task from current work:

1. •Discrete: Can be tested in isolation
2. •Bounded: Clear inputs and outputs
3. •Relevant: Part of the actual work (not contrived)
4. •Appropriate: Matches user's complexity level

Good Extractions

• •"Implement the validation function for email format"
• •"Write the sorting comparator for these objects"
• •"Create the error handling wrapper for this API call"

Bad Extractions

• •"Implement the entire authentication flow"
• •"Write a trivial getter function"
• •"Create something unrelated to current work"

Evaluation Criteria

When evaluating user code, consider:

See evaluation.md for detailed rubrics.

Tone Guidelines

Token Impact

Net: Slightly higher token usage, but high value (skill retention > tokens).

Related Files

• •prompts.md - Task templates by complexity level
• •evaluation.md - Code evaluation criteria and rubrics
• •examples.md - Sample forge interactions

Changelog