본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

growth-log

Turn lessons from complex tasks, debugging, failures, or rollbacks into short learning entries. Capture the root cause, a reusable action, and a recognizable signal, then merge examples that share a cause with existing notes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

Write growth log entries that extract reusable patterns from completed work — root cause, transferable rule, and a recognizable signal — instead of diary-style event narration, with a 4-8 sentence template and merge-duplicates discipline. Use when capturing what was learned after a complex task, debugging session, failure, or rollback, when reviewing progress over a period, or when a delivery gate asks what was learned.

연동 도구NotionObsidian
설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Capture lessons after a complex task
  • Record root causes and lessons from debugging
  • Merge learning notes that share the same cause
  • Review lessons learned over a period

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md6.9 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Growth Log Skill

The problem: Most people write "fixed a bug in X" as a learning log. That's a diary entry, not a learning artifact. A real growth log extracts the pattern so you recognize it next time.

This skill teaches: How to write learning entries that compound across sessions. Works with any note-taking system — Markdown files, Notion, Obsidian, plain text. Templates are generic; adapt to your setup.

When to Activate

  • After completing a complex task (multi-file, new feature, architecture change)
  • After a failure, mistake, or "that was harder than expected" moment
  • When you want to review what you've learned over a period

When NOT to activate: Trivial changes (typo fixes, single-line tweaks, config value changes with no debugging). The threshold: did this task involve debugging, redoing, rollback, or a non-obvious decision? If yes → write an entry. If no → skip.

The Three Rules

Rule 1: Failures > Achievements

A failure is nutritionally denser than a success. One bug that took 2 hours to find teaches more than 3 features that worked first try.

Bad: "Successfully implemented the login flow." Good (web dev): "Login flow: session token wasn't persisting because the cookie SameSite defaulted to Lax in Chrome 128+. Pattern: always explicitly set SameSite=None; Secure when cross-origin. Signal to recognize: auth breaks after browser upgrade or when crossing origin boundaries." Good (data pipeline): "CSV import failed silently on empty rows because pandas.read_csv(dropna=False) keeps zero-width rows that len() counts as valid. Pattern: always df.dropna(how='all', inplace=True) before row-count validation."

Rule 2: The Bole Principle (伯乐原则)

Before writing a new entry, ask: "Is this fundamentally the same as something I already recorded?"

Same root cause, different symptom → merge, don't duplicate. New root cause → new entry.

How to check: Search existing entries for keywords from your root cause before writing. If you find a match, add your new symptom as an additional example under the existing entry rather than creating a duplicate.

Example: "Forgot to update the output index after creating a file" and "Forgot to update skill ratings after a task" — same root cause (no automatic capture trigger). Merge into one entry about "post-task capture gaps."

Rule 3: Must Be Transferable

Every entry must answer: "Next time I face a similar situation, what do I do differently?"

If you can't write that sentence, you haven't extracted the pattern yet.

How to extract a pattern from a concrete event:

  1. State what happened in one sentence
  2. Ask "why?" iteratively until you reach root cause (usually 3-5 whys)
  3. Generalize: "What class of problem is this?" (not "Chrome 128 bug" but "browser default change breaking existing behavior")
  4. Formulate as: "Next time I see [signal], I will [action]."
  5. Name the signal: what specific observable tells you this pattern is active?

Entry Template

Scope: One entry per distinct root cause. Typical length: 4-8 sentences. If it takes >2 minutes to write, you're narrating events. If <30 seconds, you haven't gone deep enough.

## [Title: the pattern, not the event]

### Context
- What was I trying to do?
- What went wrong / what worked surprisingly well?

### Root Cause / Core Insight
- The underlying mechanism, not just the symptom

### The Pattern (transferable)
- Next time [similar situation], I will [specific action].
- Signal to recognize: [what observable tells me this pattern is active?]

### Related
- [entry-name](../path/to/related-entry.md)

Entry Types

All four types use the template above. The type determines which sections carry the most weight:

TypeWhen to UseEmphasisExample Title
FailureSomething broke, needed debugging, or required reworkRoot Cause"Config inheritance ≠ behavior inheritance across sessions"
MethodologyA repeatable process emerged from the workContext / Pattern"PPT → open-book exam study guide: three-layer structure"
Pattern DiscoveryA reusable insight about tools, systems, or thinkingPattern section"PR description template: describe the gap, not the feature"
Capability ChangeA measurable skill improvementContext (before vs after)"Git: from clone/push to independent PR with 12 commits"

Quality Checklist

Before finalizing a growth log entry:

  • Does the title name the pattern, not the event?
  • Is there a "Next time I will..." sentence?
  • Is the "Signal to recognize" specific enough to trigger the pattern next time?
  • Did I search existing entries for duplicates before writing? (Bole Principle)
  • Is the root cause distinguished from the symptom?
  • Are related memories cross-linked?
  • Is the entry 4-8 sentences? Shorter = too shallow; longer = narrating events.

Anti-Patterns

  • Avoid: "Fixed bug in payment module" (event, not pattern)
  • Avoid: Copying the git commit message verbatim (commits describe what changed; logs extract why it matters)
  • Avoid: Writing an entry for every commit (only when a pattern emerges)
  • Avoid: Skipping the transferable sentence (without it, it's just a diary — this is non-negotiable)
  • Avoid: Duplicating the same pattern under different titles (violates Bole Principle — search before writing)

Storage

Store entries wherever you keep notes. Common patterns:

  • Markdown files in a growth-log/ directory (one file per day: YYYY-MM-DD.md)
  • A dedicated section in Notion, Obsidian, or your note-taking app
  • Plain text files with a consistent naming convention

Pick one convention and stick to it. Searchability matters more than format.

If You Use Delivery Gate

The delivery-gate Stop hook checks that learning files were modified today via filesystem timestamps. This skill teaches what to write — so the file that delivery-gate checks actually contains useful patterns, not empty timestamps.

Task completes → delivery-gate checks: was the learning file touched today?
  → Stale (no file modified): block — "what did you learn?"
  → Fresh (file touched): pass — this skill ensures the content is useful

Having enforcement without methodology → empty entries. Having methodology without enforcement → forgotten captures. Each is independently useful; together they close the loop.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Adding descriptive labels to icon-only buttons
  • Reviewing keyboard navigation and modal focus
  • Checking contrast and control sizes
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Investigating failures that appear only inside an agent application
  • Tracing old conversation content leaking into new sessions
  • Checking skipped or falsely claimed tool execution
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Comparing coding agents on real development tasks
  • Evaluating a new tool or model before adoption
  • Checking performance after agent updates
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Define an AI agent’s tool set and input formats
  • Make tool results and next steps easier to interpret
  • Specify safe retries and stopping conditions
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Diagnosing repeated tool calls with no progress
  • Investigating quality loss as context grows
  • Checking file paths and environment mismatches
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 16일 업데이트

Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Diagnosing repeated failures in an agent run
  • Investigating loops through the same tool calls
  • Reviewing output degradation as context grows
affaan-m/ECC28.3만2026년 10월 5일 업데이트

affaan-m의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고