--- name: maestro-improve description: "Turn filed lessons into the smallest doctrine edit. Use when a Lead assigns improvement work for one target: group pending lessons, make one evidence-linked commit per target, return it for independent challenge, and process each accepted or rejected lesson without deleting history." review-date: 2026-11-29 --- # maestro-improve Use when a Lead assigns improvement work on one target to a Peer. The target is the only parameter; a separate Peer challenges the returned candidate before acceptance. A correction that stays in a transcript is spent when that session ends. The lesson record is what survives, and doctrine is the only thing a future session actually reads. This skill is the one place the two are joined: it turns filed corrections into the smallest edit that would have prevented them. ## The parameter The target names the doctrine a lesson corrects: a recipe section, the SLP Workspace Pack in `src/plugins/resources/SLP.md`, a Hub template, a `skills/maestro-*` file, or a repository's Workspace Protocol. Where each one lives, and what an edit to it costs, is in [references/targets.md](references/targets.md). ## The loop ```sh maestro lesson list --project # pending only, by design maestro lesson show # the gap, the expectation, the why ``` - Group the pending lessons by target. Two lessons on one rule are one edit, not two, and the second one is usually what tells you which reading of the rule was ambiguous. - Per group, propose the **smallest edit** that would have prevented what happened. Doctrine is read under load, so a sentence that removes an ambiguity beats a paragraph that adds a procedure. If the existing text already says it, the lesson is a rejection, not an edit. - The smallest edit may be a deletion. A mechanism - a seat, a review pass, a push, a sentence - earns its place by the outcomes it changed, not by how often it ran: where the lessons show one that added traffic and changed no result, remove it rather than add a counterweight. A repeating failure is first answered by moving the responsibility to the seat that owns it, not by another role, checklist or approval round, and three times a mechanism helped is not a reason to run it more often. - One commit per target group, on a branch, with the **evidence ids** of every lesson in the group in the message. The ids are how a later reader gets from the rule back to the incident that shaped it. - Mark each lesson processed by pointing at that commit: ```sh maestro lesson process --commit ``` The improver never deletes a lesson and never edits one. Processing is a pointer, so the record of what was corrected stays readable after the doctrine it corrected has changed again. A lesson whose hazard is mechanical is not answered by a sentence. Where the hazard has a mechanical form available - a helper that removes the unsafe shape, a refusal, a check that fails - the edit is that mechanism, and the return names which mechanism now makes the recurrence impossible rather than which sentence now warns about it. Where none is possible, say so in the return. A described remedy fails invisibly until it recurs, and its recurrence reads as carelessness, which tends to produce a second warning rather than a mechanism (l26, the recurrence of l8). ## Rejecting a lesson A lesson can be wrong: the rule already covers it, the correction misread it, or two lessons disagree and only one survives. Answer it where it lives and mark it processed in the same command: ```sh maestro lesson process --answer "" ``` The answer is for whoever filed it. "Out of scope" is not an answer; name the text that already covers it, or the reading that was wrong. ## The replay gate Doctrine has golden scenarios: a script of maestro commands and the transcript it produced. In this repository they are `tests/scenarios/.script` and `.golden`, replayed by `bun test tests/scenario-golden.test.ts`. Run the replay after every edit. An edit is accepted only when it still matches the golden set, or matches the change a lesson explicitly expected. The replay is necessary and never sufficient, because most doctrine output is exercised by no scenario at all. Choose the rest of the per-edit gate by the output the edit changes, not by the file it changed: grep the whole test tree for the string you are changing, and run every suite that asserts it. A grep finds a test that quotes your string; it cannot find a property lint that walks a corpus - every recipe, every profile, every skill - and asserts a shape over all of it, because such a lint names no string of yours. So also run the suite that owns the corpus the edited file belongs to. An improver that runs the replay plus the test file nearest the edit is holding an instrument that passes exactly where nobody would look, and the full suite at the end is where that shows up - as reds its own edits caused (l5, w730/w731). A replay that drifts in a way no lesson asked for is a regression in the doctrine, not an improvement, and it goes back before the work return. When a lesson did ask for the change, re-record with `MAESTRO_GOLDEN_UPDATE=1 bun test tests/scenario-golden.test.ts` and put the new golden in the same commit, so the diff shows the behaviour that changed next to the sentence that changed it. A doctrine edit no scenario covers is an edit nothing can falsify: add the scenario in the same commit rather than leaving the rule unwatched. ## Filing new lessons Reading a pile of corrections is the best moment to notice one nobody filed. File it (`maestro lesson file`) rather than folding it silently into an edit: the next improver run needs the same evidence trail this one had. Name the anti-pattern it shows when one of the eight in `~/maestro/ANTI_PATTERN.md` fits, in the lesson's own words: the vocabulary is for collecting corrections that rhyme, never a gate. ## Return Return the bounded candidate through the normal SLP work operation: ```sh maestro work return "candidate: ; lessons: ; proof: ; residual risk: independent challenge pending" ``` Name every lesson processed, answered, or left pending in the return body. A lesson in another store is processed by that store's holder after acceptance; do not mutate it from the wrong project. The Lead assigns a separate challenge Peer, reconciles the two returns, and accepts only after the challenge and replay support the candidate. Improving doctrine and approving it alone is the loop this separation exists to break. ## Red flags | The thought | The reality | |---|---| | "While I am in this file I will also tidy..." | Every changed line traces to a lesson, or the challenge Peer cannot tell an edit from an opinion. | | "These five lessons all point at the same mess; I will rewrite the section" | A rewrite loses the reading that was ambiguous. Fix the ambiguity, keep the section. | | "This lesson is wrong, I will just leave it pending" | Pending means unread. Answer it and mark it processed, so it stops counting toward the next threshold. | | "The scenarios changed because my edit is better" | An unrequested replay drift is a regression until a lesson says otherwise. | | "I will land the branch since it is obviously right" | The challenge Peer and reviewer boundary are the point; a self-approved doctrine edit is one model marking its own work. |