Metacognitive Self-Modification

Overview

Analyze the effectiveness of past skill improvements and refine the improvement process itself. This is the core innovation from the Hyperagents paper: not just improving skills, but improving HOW skills are improved.

Context Triggers (auto-invocation)

This skill should be invoked automatically when:

1. Regression detected: The homeostatic monitor finds a skill's evaluation window ended in pending_rollback_review status. The improvement made things worse, and we need to understand why.

2. Low effectiveness rate: When ImprovementMemory.get_effective_strategies() vs get_failed_strategies() shows effectiveness below 50%, the improvement process itself needs refinement.

3. Degradation despite improvements: When PerformanceTracker.get_improvement_trend() returns negative for a skill that was recently improved.

4. Periodic check: After every 10 improvement cycles (tracked via outcome count in ImprovementMemory).

Hook integration

The homeostatic monitor emits "improvement_triggered": true when a skill crosses the flag threshold. At that point, before dispatching the skill-improver, check if metacognitive analysis is warranted:

from abstract.improvement_memory import ImprovementMemory
from pathlib import Path

memory = ImprovementMemory(Path.home() / ".claude/skills/improvement_memory.json")

# Check if metacognitive analysis is warranted
effective = memory.get_effective_strategies()
failed = memory.get_failed_strategies()
total = len(effective) + len(failed)

needs_metacognition = False

# Trigger 1: Low effectiveness rate
if total >= 5 and len(effective) / total < 0.5:
    needs_metacognition = True

# Trigger 2: Periodic check (every 10 outcomes)
if total > 0 and total % 10 == 0:
    needs_metacognition = True

# Trigger 3: Recent regression
if failed and failed[-1].get("outcome_type") == "failure":
    needs_metacognition = True

if needs_metacognition:
    # Run metacognitive analysis before next improvement
    pass  # Skill(abstract:metacognitive-self-mod)

When To Use (Manual)

• After a batch of skill improvements to assess what worked
• When improvement outcomes show regressions
• Periodically (monthly) to refine improvement strategy
• When the skill-improver agent seems ineffective

When NOT To Use

• Routine skill improvements (use skill-improver directly)
• First-time skill creation (use skill-authoring)

Workflow

Step 1: Load improvement data

Read improvement memory and performance tracker data:

# Check for improvement memory
MEMORY_FILE=~/.claude/skills/improvement_memory.json
TRACKER_FILE=~/.claude/skills/performance_history.json

if [ ! -f "$MEMORY_FILE" ]; then
  echo "No improvement memory found."
  echo "Run skill-improver first to generate improvement data."
  exit 0
fi

Load the JSON files using Python:

from abstract.improvement_memory import ImprovementMemory
from abstract.performance_tracker import PerformanceTracker
from pathlib import Path

memory = ImprovementMemory(Path.home() / ".claude/skills/improvement_memory.json")
tracker = PerformanceTracker(Path.home() / ".claude/skills/performance_history.json")

Step 2: Classify improvement outcomes

For each improvement outcome in memory, classify:

• Effective: after_score - before_score >= 0.1
• Neutral: -0.1 < improvement < 0.1
• Regression: after_score < before_score

effective = memory.get_effective_strategies()
failed = memory.get_failed_strategies()

# Calculate effectiveness rate
total = len(effective) + len(failed)
if total > 0:
    effectiveness_rate = len(effective) / total

Step 3: Extract meta-patterns

Analyze WHAT types of improvements succeed vs fail:

Success patterns to look for:

• Adding error handling (reduces failure rate)
• Adding examples (improves user ratings)
• Adding quiet/verbose modes (reduces friction)
• Simplifying workflow steps (reduces duration)

Failure patterns to look for:

• Over-engineering (adding too many options)
• Breaking existing workflows (regression)
• Adding complexity without validation
• Token budget overflow from verbose additions

For each pattern found, record as a causal hypothesis:

memory.record_insight(
    skill_ref="_meta",  # Special ref for meta-insights
    category="causal_hypothesis",
    insight="Error handling improvements have 85% success rate",
    evidence=["skill-A v1.1.0: +0.3", "skill-B v2.1.0: +0.15"],
)

Step 4: Analyze improvement trends

Use PerformanceTracker to identify:

• Skills with sustained improvement (positive trend)
• Skills with degradation despite improvement attempts
• Domains where improvements are most effective

for skill_ref in tracker.get_all_skill_refs():
    trend = tracker.get_improvement_trend(skill_ref)
    if trend is not None:
        if trend > 0.05:
            # Sustained improvement - what's working?
            pass
        elif trend < -0.05:
            # Degrading despite improvements - investigate
            pass

Step 5: Generate strategy recommendations

Based on the meta-analysis, generate recommendations for the skill-improver:

1. Priority formula adjustments: If certain issue types have higher improvement success rates, weight them higher.

2. Approach selection: If "add error handling" has 85% success vs "restructure workflow" at 30%, bias toward error handling.

3. Threshold adjustments: If improvements below priority 3.0 consistently fail, raise the minimum threshold.

4. Avoidance rules: Document anti-patterns to avoid in future improvements.

Step 6: Store meta-insights

Record all findings back into ImprovementMemory under the special _meta skill ref:

# Record strategy recommendation
memory.record_insight(
    skill_ref="_meta",
    category="strategy_success",
    insight="Recommendation: Prioritize error handling and examples over restructuring",
    evidence=[f"Success rate: error_handling={eh_rate:.0%}, restructure={rs_rate:.0%}"],
)

Step 7: Update skill-improver strategy

If significant meta-insights are found, propose concrete modifications to the skill-improver agent:

• Update priority weights in the priority formula
• Add avoidance rules for known anti-patterns
• Adjust thresholds based on empirical data
• Add new improvement patterns that proved effective

Important: Propose changes, do not auto-apply. The user must approve modifications to the improvement process.

Output

Metacognitive Self-Modification Report

Improvement Data:
  Total outcomes analyzed: 15
  Effective improvements: 11 (73%)
  Regressions: 2 (13%)
  Neutral: 2 (13%)

Success Patterns:
  1. Error handling additions: 5/6 success (83%)
  2. Example additions: 3/3 success (100%)
  3. Quiet mode additions: 2/2 success (100%)

Failure Patterns:
  1. Workflow restructuring: 1/3 success (33%)
  2. Token-heavy additions: 0/1 success (0%)

Performance Trends:
  Improving: 8 skills (positive trend)
  Stable: 4 skills (no trend)
  Degrading: 1 skill (negative trend despite attempts)

Recommendations:
  1. Weight error handling improvements 2x in priority
  2. Avoid workflow restructuring below priority 8.0
  3. Cap additions at 200 tokens to prevent budget overflow
  4. Focus next improvement cycle on degrading skill X

Meta-insights stored: 5 new entries in improvement memory

Related

• abstract:skill-improver - The agent this skill analyzes and proposes modifications for
• abstract:skills-eval - Evaluation framework whose criteria could be refined by meta-insights
• abstract:aggregate-logs - Data source for improvement metrics

Exit Criteria

• The metacognitive report lists total outcomes analyzed (effective / regression / neutral counts) sourced from ~/.claude/skills/improvement_memory.json.
• At least one causal hypothesis is recorded under skill_ref: "_meta" in improvement_memory.json with cited evidence (skill refs and score deltas).
• Any Tier 3 strategy recommendation (modify skill-improver priority weights, add avoidance rules, adjust thresholds) is presented as a proposal requiring explicit user approval before any change is applied.
• If effectiveness rate is below 50% across 5+ outcomes, this condition is surfaced as the primary trigger reason in the report output.