meta-review

To audit workflow diaries for recurring errors, you need a meta-review process that groups and counts repeated failures across sessions, identifies root causes, and checks existing rules. This Skill automates that by analyzing local memory files and producing an evidence-cited Markdown report.

Instruction drift occurs when diary decisions and reflections conflict with CLAUDE.md rules. You detect it by comparing session notes against project rules to flag conflicting, weakened, or dormant rules, generating an evidence-backed meta-review of the discrepancies.

You identify automation candidates by scanning reflection notes and diaries for repeated manual steps suitable for hooks, skills, or rules. This Skill discovers those repeated steps and drafts proposals for automation to reduce future friction.

Yes, you can analyze local memory files to review personal project workflows. This Skill applies to local ~/.claude memory files and project CLAUDE.md rules, scanning recent or deep time windows to surface wasted effort and automation opportunities.

The best way to generate a weekly workflow audit report is to run a meta-review over the last week's sessions. This checks prior reviews for overlap, runs a preprocessing script, and saves a dated Markdown report to your reviews folder.

Your project keeps repeating workflow errors because recurring failures across sessions go ungrouped and unrooted. A meta-review surfaces these repeated errors, checks for existing CLAUDE.md rules that address them, and recommends edits to prevent recurrence.