feat: add /coding:self-improve command

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -8,6 +8,10 @@ Please choose versions by [Semantic Versioning](http://semver.org/).
 * MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and
 * PATCH version when you make backwards-compatible bug fixes.
 
+## Unreleased
+
+- **feat: add `/coding:self-improve` command** — reviews the current session and proposes at most two durable, evidence-backed improvements to the Claude Code environment (memory/`CLAUDE.md` rules, commands, agents, skills). Two-phase: Report (read-only, ≤2 proposals ranked, routes each by scope) → Apply (only after explicit approval). Default outcome is "nothing worth keeping this session." Stays inline (analyzes the parent conversation; cannot be delegated to a sub-agent). Sibling to the audit-* commands, on the friction-removal side.
+
 ## v0.27.0
 
 - **feat: add factory rule `go-factory/main-holds-only-boot-lifecycle-config` (SHOULD)** to `docs/go-factory-pattern.md`. New §11 "The main.go / factory boundary" states the complementary positive rule to §6.2/§8: `main.go Run` keeps only boot errors, lifecycle (`defer`), and config branching — every pure-composition value (including `run.Func` server/consumer wiring) belongs in a factory. Adds the "pass-through test", tightens §4.3 ("no additional logic" limits statement *kind*, not *count* — multi-statement router wiring is fine), fixes the §8 example which previously modeled router assembly in main, and adds a Summary bullet. Regenerates `rules/index.json` (judgment-tier, trigger `**/main.go`) and surfaces the rule in `go-factory-pattern-assistant`.

README.md

@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ Commit with changelog and version bump:
 | `/coding:audit-agent [file]` | Audit agent against Agent & Command Development Guide |
 | `/coding:audit-skill [path]` | Audit skill directory against Claude Code Skill Writing Guide |
 | `/coding:audit-slash-command [file]` | Audit slash command against Agent & Command Development Guide |
+| `/coding:self-improve` | Review THIS session; propose ≤2 durable improvements to memory/commands/agents/skills (inline, two-phase) |
 | `/coding:vscode [dir]` | Open VS Code in directory |
 | `/coding:intellij [dir]` | Open IntelliJ IDEA in directory |
 

commands/self-improve.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+description: Review THIS session and propose at most two durable improvements to the Claude Code environment (memory/CLAUDE.md rules, commands, agents, skills). Default outcome is "nothing worth keeping."
+---
+
+# Self Improve
+
+You tune the environment, not the project. This session is the evidence.
+
+**This command must stay inline** — it analyzes the parent conversation, and a
+sub-agent runs in a fresh context that cannot see this session. Do not delegate
+it to an agent.
+
+Your output is almost always **zero or one** change. Two is the ceiling. A run
+that concludes "nothing worth keeping this session" is a success.
+
+The environment accretes commands, agents, and rules over time. Every new
+artifact costs maintenance forever. Adding one is the expensive move — justify
+it or don't.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1 — Report (read-only)
+
+### 1. What ran
+List the skills, slash commands, and agents actually used this session. Note
+which caused friction (retries, wrong output, needed correction).
+
+### 2. Find repetition or cost
+Scan the transcript for:
+- the same instruction given 2+ times (this session or clearly a habit)
+- a correction the user made that was general, not one-off
+- a preventable mistake that cost real back-and-forth
+- a workflow reinvented from scratch that a tool already half-covers
+
+Ignore anything that happened once with no cost. One-offs never graduate.
+
+### 3. Keep-forever test
+For each candidate, both must hold or discard it:
+- **Recurrence:** plausibly recurs in 3+ future sessions?
+- **Evidence:** you can cite a verbatim quote + where it happened.
+
+Discard silently: one-offs, "nice to have," anything you can't quote.
+
+### 4. Prefer editing over creating
+Does an existing rule / command / agent / skill almost cover this? If yes,
+propose a small edit to it. Only propose a NEW artifact when nothing existing
+is close.
+
+### 5. Route the fix by scope
+| The fix is a… | It belongs in… |
+|---|---|
+| Global preference / habit | your global Claude memory (global `CLAUDE.md`) |
+| Project convention | that project's `CLAUDE.md` |
+| The exact same prompt, retyped | a slash command |
+| An independent responsibility | an agent |
+| Reusable multi-step capability with scripts/state | a skill |
+
+### 6. Output
+Short. Max two proposals, ranked.
+
+**Session in one line:** <process-level summary>
+
+Per proposal:
+- **Change:** what, and where (exact target file / artifact)
+- **Evidence:** verbatim quote(s) + how often
+- **Edit or new:** if new, why nothing existing fit
+- **Diff sketch:** the concrete line(s) to add or change
+
+Then **Rejected** — one line each for dropped candidates and why.
+
+If nothing clears the bar, say exactly: "Nothing worth keeping this session." Stop.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2 — Apply (only after explicit approval)
+
+Do NOT edit in Phase 1. Wait for the user to pick which proposals to accept.
+
+On approval:
+1. Read the target file before editing.
+2. Smallest change that captures the rule. No prose bloat.
+3. Memory/CLAUDE.md rules: match the existing terse, imperative bullet style.
+4. Report what changed, one line per file.
+
+Never edit beyond the approved proposals. Never expand scope while applying.
+
+---
+
+## Principles
+- Default to zero. Two is the ceiling.
+- Edit existing before creating new.
+- No quote, no proposal.
+- Fix the cause (missing rule/tool), not the symptom (one bad turn).
+- Every permanent rule you add, someone maintains forever.