| name | self-extension-workflow |
| description | Apply when executing the self-extension workflow. Six steps from a mistake to a merged rule, with CI gates and CODEOWNERS approval. |
| license | MIT |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| tokens_target | 2000 |
| triggers | executing self-extension |
| loads_after | error-log |
| supersedes |
Self-extension workflow
Exact prompt and procedure the agent executes after every mistake. The agent never pushes to main directly. Every self-extension is a PR.
Five agent steps plus a search-prerequisite, from mistake to merged rule. The agent never pushes to main. Every rule that lands is CODEOWNERS-approved. This page is the contract.
TRIGGER CONDITIONS
Five conditions. Any one of them starts the workflow.
The agent starts this workflow when any of these is met:
- A test fails and the agent wrote the faulty code.
- A code review comment corrects the agent.
- The agent realises during implementation that its first approach was wrong.
- A deployment problem occurs that the agent caused.
- The user explicitly says: "That was wrong" / "Remember this".
STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE
Five steps after the search-prerequisite. Every step is mandatory before the next one.
Step 0 — Search before write
Mandatory. Duplicates in the error log destroy the signal.
Before creating a new error entry, search the existing error log:
1. Read skills/error-log/SKILL.md.
2. Search for similar errors (same category + similar context).
3. If a similar entry exists:
- Increment its `count` field by 1.
- Update `last_seen` to today.
- Supplement the context if needed.
- Do NOT create a new entry.
4. Only if no similar entry exists, continue with Step 1.
Step 1 — Analyse the error
The agent answers six questions before writing anything.
1. What exactly did I do? (concrete code/action)
2. What should I have done instead?
3. Why did I do it wrong? (false assumption, missing knowledge, carelessness)
4. Which category applies?
- development: code error, wrong implementation
- git: commit/branch mistake
- deployment: deployment order, configuration
- security: security vulnerability
- performance: N+1, missing indexes, oversized datasets
- domain: wrong understanding of business rules
5. How severe was the error? (critical/high/medium/low)
6. Which target file does the rule belong in?
Step 2 — Determine new error ID
Take the next number after the latest entry.
# Find last entry in error-log.md
grep "id: ERR-" skills/error-log/SKILL.md | tail -1
# Take next number: ERR-2026-004 -> ERR-2026-005
Step 3 — Formulate the entry
Action directive only. The CI verb allow-list rejects anything else.
Use the template at skills/error-log/_entry-template.md. The schema at `schemas/error-entry.json` is enforced by CI.
[!WARNING] CI GATE · verb allow-list —
new_rulemust start with one ofAlways,Never,Before,After,Prefer,Avoid,Use,Do,Ensure. Anything else is rejected.
Bad: "SQL injection is dangerous"
Good: "Never concatenate user input directly into SQL queries. Always use prepared statements."
Step 4 — Determine target file
One file per category. Domain rules go to a project file, not a global one.
| Error category | Target file |
|---|---|
development |
skills/code-quality/SKILL.md |
git |
skills/git-conventions/SKILL.md |
deployment |
skills/review-deployment/SKILL.md |
security |
skills/code-quality/SKILL.md (Security section) |
performance |
skills/code-quality/SKILL.md (Performance section) |
domain |
skills/<project>/SKILL.md |
Step 5 — Insert the rule
At the end of the matching section. Reference the ERR-ID.
- Open the target file.
- Find the matching category section.
- Add the new rule at the end of the section.
- Add reference:
Reference: ERR-YYYY-NNN.
Step 6 — Open a PR
Never push to main directly. The label triggers the lint-rules workflow.
git checkout -b learn/ERR-YYYY-NNN
git add skills/
git diff --cached # MANDATORY human review step
git commit -m "learn(errors): ERR-YYYY-NNN — <short description>
Co-Authored-By: <your real name> <your-email@example.com>"
git push -u origin learn/ERR-YYYY-NNN
gh pr create --label needs-rule-review \
--title "learn(errors): ERR-YYYY-NNN" \
--body "Auto-generated rule. Reviewer: confirm rule wording and target file. CI \`lint-rules\` must pass."
Branch through CI gates and CODEOWNERS into a squash-merge on main.
Why a PR (not a direct commit). Four layers of gating.
| Layer | What it gates | Where |
|---|---|---|
lint-rules |
Schema + verb allow-list + forbidden patterns | `schemas/error-entry.json` |
auto-approve-rule-pr |
Diff scope (skills/** — error-log entry plus the target sub-skill) and Co-Authored-By: trailer |
.github/workflows/auto-approve-rule-pr.yml |
| Branch protection | CODEOWNERS approval for skills/error-log/ |
.github/CODEOWNERS |
| Human review | Final read of rule wording and target file | maintainer |
[!NOTE] CI GATE · four-layer gating — Every rule that goes live has been seen by a human. The validator is best-effort, not airtight — see SECURITY.md Limitations section.
The commit type learn makes self-extension visible in git log --grep="learn(".
FALSE POSITIVES IN THE VALIDATOR
When a legitimate rule must mention a forbidden pattern (e.g. preventing subprocess misuse).
- Add the new error ID to
skills/error-log/exceptions.yml:allow_forbidden_pattern_for: - ERR-YYYY-NNN # rationale: rule must mention `subprocess` to be specific - Open the PR. CODEOWNERS approval is required for
exceptions.ymlchanges — the bypass is auditable in git history. - The verb allow-list still applies even with a bypass entry.
CONSOLIDATION LOOP
When the error log exceeds 50 entries. Manual diff review until eval framework lands.
1. Read all entries in skills/error-log/SKILL.md.
2. Group by root_cause similarity.
3. For groups with the same root cause:
- Keep the most detailed entry.
- Sum up all `count` values.
- Set `last_seen` to the most recent date.
- Delete the duplicates.
4. For entries older than 6 months with severity: low:
- Archive (move to a comment block or separate archive file).
- The rules derived from them remain in the sub-skills.
5. Open a PR: "chore(errors): consolidate error log (N entries merged)".
LLM-driven consolidation is non-deterministic. Until the eval framework (Phase 2 roadmap) reports a stable baseline, do consolidation manually with diff review. The threshold of 50 entries is a soft signal, not a forced rebuild.
WHY THIS SUB-SKILL MATTERS
Self-extension as a normal version-control discipline.
The agent doesn't just fix errors — it learns from them, and every lesson is a Git commit you can review, revert, or share. The PR-flow brings the standard engineering toolkit to rule learning: deterministic validation, branch protection, CODEOWNERS approval, and a public audit trail.
Your agent's mistakes — versioned. Self-learning skills, every commit. One source, four agent runtimes. That's the loop.