---

name: workflow-improvement description: | Retrospective workflow evaluation and improvement of skills, agents, commands, and hooks.

Triggers: workflow improvement, retrospective, workflow efficiency Use when: workflow felt slow, confusing, or needs optimization DO NOT use when: implementing features - focus on feature work first. category: workflow-ops tags: [workflow, retrospective, efficiency, commands, agents, skills, hooks] tools: [Read, Edit, Bash, TodoWrite] complexity: medium estimated_tokens: 900 dependencies:

• sanctum:shared

---

Workflow Improvement

When to Use

Use this skill after running a command or completing a short session slice where execution felt slow, confusing, repetitive, or fragile.

This skill focuses on improving the workflow assets (skills, agents, commands, hooks) that were involved, not on feature work itself.

Required TodoWrite Items

1. fix-workflow:slice-captured
2. fix-workflow:workflow-recreated
3. fix-workflow:improvements-generated
4. fix-workflow:plan-agreed
5. fix-workflow:changes-implemented
6. fix-workflow:validated

Step 1: Capture the Session Slice (slice-captured)

Identify the most recent command or session slice in the current context window and capture:

• Trigger: What command / request started it (include the literal /command if present)
• Goal: What “done” meant for the user
• Artifacts touched: Skills, agents, commands, hooks (names + file paths)
• Evidence: Key tool calls / errors / retries that indicate inefficiency

If the slice is ambiguous, pick the most recent complete attempt and state the exact boundary you chose.

Step 2: Recreate the Workflow (workflow-recreated)

Reconstruct the workflow as a numbered list of steps (5–20 steps):

• Inputs (what was assumed / required)
• Decisions (branch points)
• Outputs (files produced, state changes)

Also record friction points:

• Repeated steps / redundant tool calls
• Missing guardrails (validation too late, unclear prerequisites)
• Missing automation (manual steps that should be scripted)
• Confusing naming or discoverability gaps

Step 3: Generate Improvements (improvements-generated)

Generate 3–5 distinct improvement approaches and score each on:

• Impact (time saved, fewer errors, fewer steps)
• Complexity (how invasive is the change)
• Reversibility (easy to rollback)
• Consistency (matches existing sanctum patterns)

Prefer small, high-use changes:

• Tighten a skill’s steps and exit criteria
• Add a missing command option or usage clarity
• Improve a hook guardrail or make it observable
• Split an overloaded command into clearer phases

Step 4: Agree on a Plan (plan-agreed)

Choose 1 approach and define:

• Acceptance criteria (“substantive difference”)
• Files to change
• Validation commands to run
• Out-of-scope items to defer

Keep the plan bounded: aim for ≤ 5 files changed unless the workflow truly spans more.

Step 5: Implement (changes-implemented)

Apply changes following sanctum conventions:

• Keep naming consistent across commands/, agents/, skills/, hooks/
• Prefer documentation-first improvements if ambiguity was the primary issue
• If behavior changes, add/adjust tests in plugins/sanctum/tests/

Step 6: Validate Substantive Improvement (validated)

Validation should include at least 2 of:

• Plugin validators / unit tests passing (targeted)
• Re-running the minimal workflow reproduction with fewer steps or less manual work
• A clear reduction in failure modes (e.g., earlier validation, clearer options)

Record the before/after comparison as metrics, not prose:

• Step count reduction
• Tool call reduction
• Errors avoided (what would have failed before)