claudemd-reviewlisted

# CLAUDE.md Review A quick self-check, not a pipeline: read back over this conversation, find places where the human corrected something a project rule should have already covered, and propose a small, bounded edit. Nothing here gets applied without the human reviewing it first. ## Process 1. **Scan this conversation** for corrections, "no, actually", or repeated clarifications — the same signal `skill-tuning-loop`'s Mine stage looks for in past sessions, except you already have the transcript in context. 2. **For each one, classify it:** - **Already covered, ignored anyway** — the relevant CLAUDE.md already says this; the fix is emphasis or clarity, not new content. - **Genuinely missing** — no existing rule addresses it; a new line would have prevented the correction. - **One-off** — specific to this task, not a durable project convention. Don't propose an edit for this; CLAUDE.md is for what generalizes. 3. **Propose a MINIMAL diff** for the "genuinely missing" and "ignored anyway" cases only. Match the file's existing voice and structure — don't restructure sections that aren't implicated. State the rule concretely (name the specific convention), not "follow best practices." 4. **Present the diff, don't apply it.** Show the human the proposed addition and why (quote the correction that motivated it). They edit the file, not you — CLAUDE.md is read on every session for every task in the project; a bad edit here is a bad ed