Claude-prime self-evolve

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/avibebuilder/claude-prime

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/avibebuilder/claude-prime "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/.claude/skills/self-evolve" ~/.claude/skills/avibebuilder-claude-prime-self-evolve && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: .claude/skills/self-evolve/SKILL.md

source content

ultrathink.

Wire Mode: Apply Self-Improvement Proposals

When scope is

(none)

, or when pending proposals exist and user says "ok":

Fetching proposals:

python3 .claude/hooks/self-improve/self_improve_db.py resolve list

Step 0: Consolidate before showing

User attention is finite — showing 12 proposals when 4 are duplicates, 3 already exist in rules, and 2 are noise wastes their focus on what matters. Before presenting anything, read the existing config (

.claude/rules/

, CLAUDE.md, CLAUDE.local.md, active skills) to understand what's already there. Then filter: proposals already covered by existing rules, duplicates of each other, and low-value noise that wouldn't improve agent behavior. Merge proposals addressing the same pattern into one entry with the clearest rationale.

Tell the user what you filtered: "Showing X of Y proposals (Z filtered)."

After user finishes reviewing visible proposals, batch-reject the filtered ones:

python3 .claude/hooks/self-improve/self_improve_db.py resolve <id1>,<id2>,... rejected

For each shown proposal, ask the user to approve or reject.

Step 1: Classify — where does it belong?

Test	Question	If Yes
Rule test	"Will an agent still produce incorrect code without this, even with the skill active?"	→ Rule ( `.claude/rules/` )
Skill test	"Is this a repeatable process/workflow, not a constraint?"	→ Skill — rare
On-demand ref	"Is this project-specific architecture/context, not a behavioral rule?"	→ Reference file pointed from CLAUDE.md
Personal pref	"Is this specific to this user, not team-shared?"	→ `CLAUDE.local.md` (gitignored)
Default	None clearly match?	→ Rule (safest default)

~80% of proposals become rules — the pipeline detects behavioral corrections, and corrections are rules by definition.

Step 2: Read existing content, check for overlap

Read all files in the target location. Scan for semantic overlap — does an existing rule/section already cover this?

Step 3: Place — merge or add

If overlap exists: merge into existing entry — expand/refine/strengthen, don't create near-duplicates
If distinct: add under the most relevant section header

Writing quality — proposals describe specific incidents, but rules must work for the general case:

Generalize from the incident. The proposal says "Claude changed the pass dot when user meant N/A dot." The rule should address the class: "When multiple UI elements match an ambiguous reference, confirm which one before changing any." Don't encode the specific incident — encode the pattern.
Ground in reasoning, not commands. "ALWAYS confirm ambiguous references" is brittle — the agent doesn't know when it applies. "Because acting on the wrong target wastes a correction cycle, confirm which element when multiple candidates match" gives the agent judgment for edge cases.
Trim while merging. When adding to an existing rule file, read what's already there. If existing entries are redundant with the new content or with each other, consolidate. The goal after merging is a tighter file, not a longer one.
Watch for accumulation. If 3+ proposals have landed in the same file or section, that's a restructuring signal — the section may need splitting, or the underlying skill needs fixing instead of piling on more rules.
Think from the agent's perspective. Before finalizing, ask: "If I were an agent reading this rule for the first time with no context about the incident, would I understand when and why to apply it?" If the answer requires knowledge of the original proposal, rewrite.
Re-read with fresh eyes. After merging, re-read the entire section (not just your addition). Does the new content flow with the existing entries, or does it feel bolted on? Revise for coherence.

Step 4: Verify — smoke test

Use the proposal's

rationale

to construct a minimal replay prompt that would trigger the same mistake. Spawn a subagent with the new rule, give it the prompt, check if it avoids the failure. If it fails, revise once. If still fails, flag to user. Keep this fast — one prompt, one check.

Step 5: Resolve

python3 .claude/hooks/self-improve/self_improve_db.py resolve <id>[,<id>,...] approved  # or rejected

Step 6: Confirm

Tell the user: what was placed, where (file + section), why that location, and whether verification passed.

Manual reorganization

When invoked for rule reorganization (not proposals): read all

.claude/rules/

, identify duplicates/misplaced rules, propose consolidation plan, apply on approval.

Audit Mode: Proactive Config Analysis

When scope is

full

skills

rules

claude-md

, or

quick

. Also when

(none)

and no pending proposals found.

Phase 1: Understand the Project

Read
```
package.json
```
,
```
pyproject.toml
```
,
```
go.mod
```
, or equivalent — know the stack
Scan top-level directory structure — know the architecture
Read CLAUDE.md — know what config claims about the project
Read
```
.claude/settings.json
```
— know what hooks are configured

.claude/hooks/self-improve/

exists, check for pending proposals:

python3 .claude/hooks/self-improve/self_improve_db.py resolve list

Phase 2: Analyze

Read

references/quality-dimensions.md

for mechanical check scripts, staleness signals, and conflict resolution rules. Then run per-component analysis — see

references/audit-guide.md

for the full checklist covering skills, rules, CLAUDE.md, CLAUDE.local.md, and hooks.

Phase 3: Fix

Severity: CRITICAL (wrong code/skill, broken refs) → fix. MODERATE (suboptimal output) → fix if easy. LOW (style) → report only.

Fix: broken refs, inaccurate facts, trigger overlaps, weak/stale rules, redundant cross-layer content, broken hooks, orphaned project refs. Don't fix: workflow skill descriptions (report for skill-creator), substantial completeness gaps (report as recommendation), things that work.

Phase 4: Verify

For each fix: re-read, re-run the specific check, confirm it passes. Check no new broken refs introduced.

Phase 5: Report

Use the report template in

references/audit-guide.md § Report Template

. Health verdicts: HEALTHY (0 CRITICAL, ≤2 MODERATE) | NEEDS ATTENTION (unfixed MODERATE or 1 CRITICAL) | CRITICAL ISSUES (2+ CRITICAL).

Constraints

Stay in your lane. Config quality + proposals only. Not for creating skills, priming projects, or fixing code bugs.
Fix what's broken, not what's working. Respect knowledge layers: skills teach, rules guard, refs provide context.
Don't bloat. If a fix requires 50+ new lines, report as recommendation.
Don't weaken when merging. Combined version must be at least as strong as the original.