reflect

---
name: reflect
description: Use when the user wants to pause mid-conversation and reassess direction, assumptions, and bias, or shows signs of drifting deep into details without a strategic check-in.
category: Productivity
version: 1.0.0
tools: []
---

# Reflect — Mid-Conversation Reassessment

Pause execution mid-conversation and produce a frank reassessment of where the conversation has been heading. Output is **flowing analysis (no headers, conversational tone)** covering macro perspective, gap analysis, reflective inquiry, bias check, and contextual alignment, ending with a clear directional recommendation: **continue, pivot, or pause to answer a specific question**.

## Invocation Triggers

**Explicit phrases:** "reflect," "take a step back" / "step back," "zoom out," "are we missing something," "bigger picture," "what are we missing," "let's pause," "sanity check this," "are we on track," "are we overthinking this," "forest for the trees."

**Implicit signals (no phrase needed):** the conversation has gone 10+ turns deep on implementation details without a strategic check-in; the user shows signs of frustration or stuck-ness; repeated dead-ends or pivots within a short span.

When you detect an implicit trigger, **don't auto-invoke** — ask the user if they want to step back. Implicit signals are a prompt to OFFER reflection, not to unilaterally run it.

## Stop Directive (Before Reassessing)

**Halt the current thread.** Don't continue execution of the in-progress task. Reflection is a pause, not a side-quest: continuing detail work while "reflecting on the side" defeats the purpose (you'll over-weight the current direction), the user expects a clear break in cadence, and the reassessment needs full attention to the conversation history.

## Grill-Me Optional Clarifier

This skill is intentionally **low-intake** — most invocations should run the 5-dimension analysis immediately without questions. The grill-me discipline applies *only* when the invocation is ambiguous (e.g. the user pastes "step back" at the start of a fresh conversation with no prior context to reassess).

> **What specifically should I reassess? Pick one:** (1) the goal — are we solving the right problem? (2) the approach — is the path we're on the best one? (3) the assumptions — what are we taking for granted? (4) all of the above (default if you have time).
> *Why I'm asking:* I'm seeing limited prior context to reassess, so I want to focus the reflection rather than guess.

**Stop condition:** one question max, asked only when context is genuinely thin. If the user invokes mid-conversation with normal context, no questions are asked — the skill runs directly.

## The 5-Dimension Analysis Framework

Re-read the **full conversation from the original goal forward** — not just recent turns. This is the discipline that distinguishes real reflection from local-context summary.

**1. Macro Perspective.** What did the user actually start trying to do (original goal)? Has the conversation drifted from that goal, toward something better or worse? How does current work connect to the larger objective? Anchor with specific evidence: "At turn 3 the goal was X; by turn 12 we're working on Y. Is Y a productive narrowing of X, or a drift away?"

**2. Gap Analysis.** Unverified assumptions taken for granted but not checked; missing stakeholders/audiences/users beyond the immediate context; skipped constraints (technical, regulatory, resource limits); dismissed alternatives worth briefly revisiting; external factors (timing, market, dependencies) not in scope.

**3. Reflective Inquiry.** Is the problem framed correctly? Are we solving the right problem vs. an adjacent easier one? Is a simpler path being overcomplicated, or a harder but more valuable path being avoided? Fresh-eyes perspective: would someone else approach this differently?

**4. Bias Check.** Five biases, each recognized through specific conversation patterns:

| Bias | Recognition cue |
|---|---|
| **Confirmation bias** | Evidence cited only supports the working hypothesis; counter-evidence absent or dismissed |
| **Sunk cost fallacy** | "We've already invested X" / "we're far enough in to..." instead of fresh cost/benefit |
| **Anchoring** | Stuck on first option mentioned; new options compared against it rather than evaluated independently |
| **Complexity bias** | Adding features / steps / safeguards without specific justification for each |
| **Recency bias** | Over-weighting last few turns; older but important context being ignored |

For each detected bias: name it, cite the specific evidence, suggest a corrective move.

**5. Contextual Alignment.** Does the direction serve the user's actual goals (as known from context)? Are external factors being ignored? Is this the best use of the user's time and energy right now? How does it connect to other known projects or priorities?

## Tone and Format Rules

- **Flowing prose** — no headers, no bullet lists, no structured-report formatting
- **Tight but thorough** — neither a one-liner nor a wall of text
- **Direct critique when warranted**, with specific evidence from the conversation
- **Validation when warranted**, with specific reasoning for why the path is solid
- **No vague reassurance** — "looks good!" without reasoning is rejected
- **No manufactured problems** — when the path is genuinely solid, say so with specific reasons; don't invent issues

## Closing Recommendation (Mandatory)

Every run ends with one of three directional recommendations:

| Recommendation | When | Format |
|---|---|---|
| **Continue** | Path is solid | "Continue. {specific reasoning for why}." |
| **Pivot to {X}** | Drift has occurred OR a better path surfaced | "Pivot toward {X}, away from {what to drop}. {specific evidence}." |
| **Pause for {Q}** | A specific question needs answering before continuing | "Pause for {Q}. Without answering this, the next step risks {specific cost}." |

The closing is always specific — never "you should think more about this" or "consider your options."

## Error Handling

| Situation | Behavior |
|---|---|
| Conversation is very short (no real context to reassess) | Acknowledge limitation, ask the clarifier question |
| Current direction is genuinely solid | State this clearly with reasoning; don't manufacture problems |
| User invokes mid-task with no clear question | Default to macro perspective + bias check; offer to dig deeper |
| Implicit trigger seems possible but unclear | Don't invoke proactively; ask user if they want to step back |

## Anti-Patterns To Reject

- Hardcoded user names or specific domain references
- Structured-report output (headers, bullet lists) when prose is required
- Manufactured problems when things are actually fine
- Vague reassurance ("looks good!") instead of specific reasoning
- Reassessing only recent turns instead of the full conversation
- Skipping the closing directional recommendation
- Continuing the in-progress task while "reflecting on the side"