Evolve – Skill Self-Improvement

Analyze project context, patches, and codebase to improve existing skills. Makes AI Factory smarter with every run.

Core Idea

patches (past mistakes) + project context + codebase patterns
    ↓
analyze recurring problems, tech-specific pitfalls, project conventions
    ↓
enhance skills with project-specific rules, guards, and patterns

Workflow

Step 0: Load Context

Read .ai-factory/DESCRIPTION.md to understand:

• Tech stack
• Architecture
• Conventions

Step 1: Collect Intelligence

1.1: Read all patches

Glob: .ai-factory/patches/*.md

Read every patch. For each one, extract:

• Problem category (null-check, async, validation, types, API, DB, etc.)
• Root cause pattern (what class of mistake was made)
• Prevention rule (what should be done differently)
• Tags

1.2: Aggregate patterns

Group patches by tags and categories. Identify:

• Recurring problems — same tag appears 3+ times? This is a systemic issue
• Tech-specific pitfalls — problems tied to the stack (e.g., React re-renders, Laravel N+1)
• Missing guards — what checks/patterns could have prevented these bugs

1.3: Read codebase conventions

Scan the project for patterns:

• Linter configs (.eslintrc, phpstan.neon, ruff.toml, etc.)
• Existing test patterns (test file structure, assertions used)
• Error handling patterns (try/catch style, error types)
• Logging patterns (logger used, format, levels)
• Import conventions, file structure

Step 2: Read Current Skills

Determine which skills to evolve:

• If $ARGUMENTS contains a specific skill name → evolve only that skill
• If $ARGUMENTS is “all” or empty → evolve all installed skills

Read each target skill’s SKILL.md:

Glob: {{skills_dir}}/*/SKILL.md

If skills are not installed yet (no {{skills_dir}}/), read from source:

Glob: skills/*/SKILL.md

Step 3: Analyze Gaps

For each skill, identify what’s missing based on collected intelligence:

3.1: Patch-driven gaps

Compare patch patterns against skill instructions:

• Does /aif-fix mention the most common error categories from patches? If not → add them
• Does /aif-implement warn about the pitfalls found in patches? If not → add guards
• Does /aif-plan include logging/validation requirements for problem areas? If not → enhance
• Does /aif-review check for the patterns that caused bugs? If not → add checklist items

3.2: Tech-stack gaps

Compare project tech stack against skill instructions:

• Skills reference generic patterns but project uses specific framework? → Add framework-specific guidance
• Project uses TypeScript but skills show JS examples? → Update examples
• Project uses specific ORM (Prisma, Eloquent)? → Add ORM-specific patterns

3.3: Convention gaps

Compare project conventions against skill instructions:

• Project has specific error handling pattern? → Skills should enforce it
• Project uses specific logger? → Skills should reference it
• Project has specific file structure? → Skills should follow it

Step 4: Generate Improvements

For each gap found, create a concrete improvement:

## Improvement: [skill-name]

### What
[Specific change to make]

### Why
[Which patches/patterns drove this change]

### Where
[Exact section in SKILL.md to modify]

### Change
[The actual text to add/modify]

Quality rules for improvements:

• Each improvement must be traceable to a patch, convention, or tech-stack fact
• No generic advice — only project-specific enhancements
• Improvements must be minimal and focused — don’t rewrite entire skills
• Preserve existing skill structure — add, don’t replace

Step 5: Present & Apply

5.1: Present improvements to user

## Skill Evolution Report

Based on:
- X patches analyzed
- Y recurring patterns found
- Z tech-stack specific insights

### Proposed Improvements

#### /aif-fix
1. **Add null-check guard** — 5 patches involved null references
   → Add to Step 2: "Check for optional/nullable fields before accessing nested properties"

2. **Add async/await pattern** — 3 patches involved unhandled promises
   → Add to Important Rules: "Always use try/catch with async/await"

#### /aif-implement
1. **Add Prisma-specific warning** — 2 patches from incorrect Prisma queries
   → Add to Logging: "Log all Prisma queries in DEBUG mode"

#### /aif-review
1. **Add checklist item** — optional chaining not checked
   → Add to Correctness: "Optional chaining for nullable relations"

Apply these improvements?
- [ ] Yes, apply all
- [ ] Let me pick which ones
- [ ] No, just save the report

5.2: Apply approved improvements

For each approved improvement:

1. Read the target SKILL.md
2. Apply the change using Edit
3. Keep changes minimal and surgical

5.3: Save evolution log

Create .ai-factory/evolutions/YYYY-MM-DD-HH.mm.md:

mkdir -p .ai-factory/evolutions

# Evolution: YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm

## Intelligence Summary
- Patches analyzed: X
- Recurring patterns: [list]
- Tech stack: [from DESCRIPTION.md]

## Improvements Applied

### [skill-name]
- [change description] ← driven by patches: [patch filenames]

### [skill-name]
- [change description] ← driven by: [tech stack / convention]

## Patterns Identified
- [pattern]: [frequency] occurrences
- [pattern]: [frequency] occurrences

Step 6: Suggest Next Actions

## Evolution Complete

Skills improved: X
Improvements applied: Y

### Recommendations

1. **Run `/aif-review`** on recent code to verify improvements
2. **Next evolution** — run `/aif-evolve` again after 5-10 more fixes
3. **Consider new skill** — if pattern X keeps recurring, create a dedicated skill:
   `/aif-skill-generator <skill-name>`

Context Cleanup

Context is heavy after reading all patches and skills. All improvements are saved — suggest freeing space:

AskUserQuestion: Free up context before continuing?

Options:
1. /clear — Full reset (recommended)
2. /compact — Compress history
3. Continue as is

What Each Skill Can Learn

Important Rules

1. Traceable — every improvement must link to a patch, convention, or tech fact
2. Minimal — add rules, don’t rewrite skills
3. Reversible — user approves before changes are applied
4. Cumulative — each evolution builds on previous ones
5. No hallucination — only suggest improvements backed by evidence
6. Preserve structure — don’t change skill workflow, only enrich it

Examples

Example 1: After 10 fixes with null-reference patterns

/aif-evolve fix

→ Found 6/10 patches tagged #null-check
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-fix Step 2:
  "PRIORITY CHECK: Look for optional/nullable fields accessed
   without null guards. This is the #1 source of bugs in this project."
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-review checklist:
  "- [ ] All nullable DB fields have null checks in UI/API layer"

Example 2: Laravel project with N+1 issues

/aif-evolve all

→ Stack: Laravel + Eloquent (from DESCRIPTION.md)
→ Found 3 patches tagged #n-plus-one #database
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-implement logging:
  "Enable query logging: DB::enableQueryLog() in DEBUG mode"
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-review checklist:
  "- [ ] Eager loading used for related models (no N+1)"
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-plan descriptions:
  "Include 'use ->with() for relations' in DB-related tasks"

Example 3: First run with no patches

/aif-evolve

→ No patches found (first run)
→ Analyzing project context only...
→ Stack: Next.js 14 + Prisma + TypeScript
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-implement:
  "Use server actions for mutations, API routes for external APIs"
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-fix:
  "For Prisma errors, check schema.prisma for field types first"
→ Improvement: Add to /aif-review:
  "- [ ] Server components don't use client-only hooks"

DO NOT:

• Do not rewrite entire skills
• Do not remove existing rules
• Do not add generic advice (“write clean code”)
• Do not create new skills (suggest using /aif-skill-generator instead)
• Do not apply changes without user approval
• Do not evolve skills not installed in the project