Reflect

Reflect — step back and audit the work, not just the code

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.

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)

• 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).