Analyze recent code changes via git history and extract software engineering lessons. Use when the user asks 'what is the lesson here?', 'what can I learn from this?', 'engineering takeaway', 'what did I just learn?', 'reflect on this code', or wants to extract principles from recent work.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use lesson-learned to analyze [git scope] and produce one to three grounded engineering lessons, citing the relevant code changes and commit intent.
Required inputs
[git scope]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: lesson-learneddescription: "Analyze recent code changes via git history and extract software engineering lessons. Use when the user asks 'what is the lesson here?', 'what can I learn from this?', 'engineering takeaway', 'what did I just learn?', 'reflect on this code', or wants to extract principles from recent work."
Lesson Learned
Extract specific, grounded software engineering lessons from actual code changes. Not a lecture -- a mirror. Show the user what their code already demonstrates.
Before You Begin
Load the principles reference first.
Read references/se-principles.md to have the principle catalog available
Optionally read references/anti-patterns.md if you suspect the changes include areas for improvement
Determine the scope of analysis (see Phase 1)
Do not proceed until you've loaded at least se-principles.md.
Phase 1: Determine Scope
Ask the user or infer from context what to analyze.
User says "what about these changes?" before committing
Default behavior:
If on a feature branch: analyze branch commits vs main
If on main: analyze the last 5 commits
If the user provides a different scope, use that
Phase 2: Gather Changes
Run git log with the determined scope to get the commit list and messages
Run git diff for the full diff of the scope
If the diff is large (>500 lines), use git diff --stat first, then selectively read the top 3-5 most-changed files
Read commit messages carefully -- they contain intent that raw diffs miss
Only read changed files. Do not read the entire repo.
Phase 3: Analyze
Identify the dominant pattern -- the single most instructive thing about these changes.
Look for:
Structural decisions -- How was the code organized? Why those boundaries?
Trade-offs made -- What was gained vs. sacrificed? (readability vs. performance, DRY vs. clarity, speed vs. correctness)
Problems solved -- What was the before/after? What made the "after" better?
Missed opportunities -- Where could the code improve? (present gently as "next time, consider...")
Map findings to specific principles from references/se-principles.md. Be specific -- quote actual code, reference actual file names and line changes.
Phase 4: Present the Lesson
Use this template:
## Lesson: [Principle Name]
**What happened in the code:**
[2-3 sentences describing the specific change, referencing files and commits]
**The principle at work:**
[1-2 sentences explaining the SE principle]
**Why it matters:**
[1-2 sentences on the practical consequence -- what would go wrong without this, or what goes right because of it]
**Takeaway for next time:**
[One concrete, actionable sentence the user can apply to future work]
If there is a second lesson worth noting (maximum 2 additional):
---
### Also worth noting: [Principle Name]
**In the code:** [1 sentence]
**The principle:** [1 sentence]
**Takeaway:** [1 sentence]
What NOT to Do
Avoid
Why
Instead
Listing every principle that vaguely applies
Overwhelming and generic
Pick the 1-2 most relevant
Analyzing files that were not changed
Scope creep
Stick to the diff
Ignoring commit messages
They contain intent that diffs miss
Read them as primary context
Abstract advice disconnected from the code
Not actionable
Always reference specific files/lines
Negative-only feedback
Demoralizing
Lead with what works, then suggest improvements
More than 3 lessons
Dilutes the insight
One well-grounded lesson beats seven vague ones
Conversation Style
Reflective, not prescriptive. Use the user's own code as primary evidence.
Never say "you should have..." -- instead use "the approach here shows..." or "next time you face this, consider..."
If the code is good, say so. Not every lesson is about what went wrong. Recognizing good patterns reinforces them.
If the changes are trivial (a single config tweak, a typo fix), say so honestly rather than forcing a lesson. "These changes are straightforward -- no deep lesson here, just good housekeeping."
Be specific. Generic advice is worthless. Every claim must point to a concrete code change.