harness-feedback

To convert cross-project lessons into standardized rules, you describe a discrete downstream lesson and the skill interactively prompts you to generate a canonical harness artifact, such as a structured feedback block or adaptable spec brief, to prevent recurring friction.

The best way to capture process failures and manual workarounds as governance standards is to use an interactive lesson capture mechanism that translates wasted time into structured harness rules and hooks, driving systemic improvements across projects.

You create harness hooks from real-world project lessons by providing a discrete downstream lesson, which triggers the skill to auto-generate a structured harness feedback block that routes directly to your harness spec or gates for closed-loop remediation.

Yes, applying cross-project standards to your harness gates requires a canonical output format that includes a terminates_in gate reference, ensuring the generated hooks or spec briefs integrate correctly into your existing governance workflow.

Yes, you can draft spec briefs instead of direct rule changes when routing harness feedback, as the skill supports an adaptable closed-loop remediation pattern that drafts spec briefs or applies direct rule changes depending on your specific context.

You should not use automated lesson capture for governance rules if your downstream friction cannot be isolated into a discrete lesson, as the skill requires a specific discrete input to successfully translate process failures into standardized hooks.