From godmode
Use when completing any meaningful task - distill patterns, lessons, and insights from the interaction and persist them for future sessions
npx claudepluginhub noobygains/godmode --plugin godmodeThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Every substantial interaction yields signal. A debugging session exposes a hidden codebase convention. A user correction reveals a preference. A failed plan uncovers a blind spot. Recording these observations is not overhead -- it is compound interest on capability.
Extracts patterns, quirks, and decisions from conversations; persists to Markdown files in knowledge/learnings/. Use /learn for quick or /learn --deep for thorough analysis.
Extracts reusable strategic knowledge from session history (architecture, patterns, ops) and updates local CLAUDE.md. Triggers on 'learn', 'save knowledge', or session ends.
Persists learnings into a 5-layer memory hierarchy (CLAUDE.md files, memory/MEMORY.md) and consolidates by pruning outdated entries and promoting recurring patterns. Triggers on 'extract learnings', 'remember', 'dream'.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Every substantial interaction yields signal. A debugging session exposes a hidden codebase convention. A user correction reveals a preference. A failed plan uncovers a blind spot. Recording these observations is not overhead -- it is compound interest on capability.
Core principle: Solving a difficult problem without recording what you discovered means solving it from zero next time.
No exceptions. No workarounds. No shortcuts.
EXTRACT INSIGHT FROM EVERY MEANINGFUL INTERACTION
An interaction that ends without reflection is a wasted investment. You possessed the context, found the answer, observed what succeeded -- then discarded all of it.
No excuses:
Reflect. Distill. Persist. Full stop.
Mandatory after:
Exceptions (confirm with the human):
Tempted to think "there is nothing to capture here"? Pause. That is rationalization.
AFTER completing any meaningful task:
1. REFLECT: What succeeded? What failed? What was unexpected?
2. DISTILL: What generalizable pattern or insight emerges?
3. DEDUPLICATE: Is this already recorded? Does it contradict something stored?
4. PERSIST: Write it to the appropriate memory file with date and context
5. PRUNE: Remove any prior entries that newer evidence invalidates
Omit any step = insight permanently lost
digraph capture_lifecycle {
rankdir=TB;
node [shape=box style=filled];
task [label="Meaningful Task\nCompleted" fillcolor=lightyellow shape=doublecircle];
reflect [label="REFLECT\nWhat occurred?\nWhat surprised me?" fillcolor="#ccccff"];
distill [label="DISTILL\nAbstract the insight\nfrom the specifics" fillcolor="#ccccff"];
exists [label="Already\nrecorded?" shape=diamond fillcolor="#fff3e0"];
conflicts [label="Contradicts\nan existing entry?" shape=diamond fillcolor="#fff3e0"];
persist [label="PERSIST\nSave to memory\nwith date + context" fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
prune [label="PRUNE\nRemove outdated\nentry" fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
cluster [label="CLUSTER\n3+ related insights?\nForm a conviction" fillcolor="#ccffcc"];
promote [label="PROMOTE\nHigh-confidence conviction\n-> CLAUDE.md rule" fillcolor="#e8f5e9"];
skip [label="Skip\n(already known)" fillcolor="#eeeeee"];
task -> reflect;
reflect -> distill;
distill -> exists;
exists -> skip [label="yes, identical"];
exists -> conflicts [label="no"];
conflicts -> prune [label="yes"];
prune -> persist;
conflicts -> persist [label="no"];
persist -> cluster;
cluster -> promote [label="3+ confirmations"];
cluster -> task [label="await further\nevidence" style=dashed];
}
Code approaches, debugging tactics, and architectural choices that led to clean results. These are positive signals to reinforce.
Sample entry:
Date: 2025-04-10
Context: Built retry logic for third-party webhook delivery
Insight: Exponential backoff with random jitter eliminated thundering-herd spikes
Confidence: medium (validated once)
What went wrong, how it was resolved, how to prevent recurrence. Failures yield the highest-signal lessons.
Sample entry:
Date: 2025-04-12
Context: Logging middleware silently swallowed request bodies after refactor
Insight: Any change to middleware ordering demands a full integration test pass -- blast radius is total
Confidence: high (validated by production incident)
Stylistic choices, tool preferences, and conventions the user follows. Discovered through corrections and direct statements.
Sample entry:
Date: 2025-04-13
Context: User corrected my naming approach
Insight: User requires camelCase for variables, PascalCase for types, and no abbreviations anywhere
Confidence: high (direct correction)
Architecture details, hidden gotchas, critical files, tribal knowledge that lives nowhere in documentation.
Sample entry:
Date: 2025-04-14
Context: Spent 15 minutes searching for runtime config
Insight: All runtime configuration lives in src/config/runtime.ts, not in .env files
Confidence: high (verified in source)
Leverage Claude Code's memory system: ~/.claude/projects/[project]/memory/
| File | Purpose | Example Entry |
|---|---|---|
effective-patterns.md | Code approaches and strategies that produced clean outcomes | "Zod schemas at API boundaries catch malformed data before it propagates" |
failure-analysis.md | Root-cause patterns and diagnostic techniques | "Tests passing locally but failing in CI usually indicate timezone or locale assumptions" |
project-map.md | Architecture, key files, and codebase conventions | "Database migrations reside in db/migrations/ and execute via pnpm db:migrate" |
human-preferences.md | Stylistic choices, tooling preferences, and conventions the user enforces | "User demands explicit error types; string-based errors are rejected" |
Every captured insight must include:
### [Concise title]
- **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
- **Context:** What was happening when this was discovered
- **Insight:** The generalized takeaway
- **Confidence:** low / medium / high
- **Confirmations:** Number of times this has been validated
Before writing a new entry, scan the target memory file. If the insight already exists:
Isolated insights become powerful when they converge into convictions.
Insight 1: "This project validates forms with zod" (medium confidence)
Insight 2: "API route handlers also validate payloads with zod" (medium confidence)
Insight 3: "User corrected me for using manual validation instead of zod" (high confidence)
Converge into conviction
Conviction: "This project ALWAYS validates at every boundary using zod"
Confidence: high (confirmed across 3 interactions)
When a conviction reaches high confidence (confirmed across 3+ interactions), it becomes eligible for promotion to a project CLAUDE.md rule:
Conviction: "This project always validates with zod"
-> Confirmed 3+ times
-> Propose to user: "I have observed that this project consistently
uses zod for validation. Should I codify this as a project rule in CLAUDE.md?"
-> User approves -> add to CLAUDE.md
Never auto-promote. Always obtain user consent before adding entries to CLAUDE.md. The human is the final authority on permanent rules.
When beginning a new session on a project:
| Tier | Meaning | Origin | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Tentative signal | Single occurrence, unconfirmed | Record, watch for confirmation |
| Medium | Probable pattern | Confirmed twice, or one strong indicator | Record, apply when relevant |
| High | Established truth | Confirmed 3+ times, or explicit user declaration | Record, apply consistently, consider promotion |
| Rationalization | Truth |
|---|---|
| "There is nothing to capture here" | Every task produces signal. You are not examining closely enough. |
| "I will recall this naturally" | You will not. The next session starts with a blank slate. Memory files are your continuity. |
| "Too minor to bother recording" | Minor insights accumulate. Three small observations become one powerful conviction. |
| "It is self-evident" | Self-evident to you now, with full context. Not self-evident when cold-starting next week. |
| "Recording takes too long" | Thirty seconds to write an entry. Thirty minutes to rediscover the same insight. |
| "The user did not request this" | They requested quality. Learning from experience IS how quality improves over time. |
| "Memory files are getting cluttered" | That is a pruning problem, not a recording problem. Prune more; never stop capturing. |
| "This only applies to this one project" | Project-specific knowledge is the MOST valuable kind. That is precisely why it is stored per-project. |
Prohibited actions:
Required actions:
This skill feeds INTO other skills:
This skill is fed BY other skills:
The virtuous cycle:
Work -> Capture -> Persist -> Apply -> Work better -> Capture more