Learning Mode Skill
Enables transparent decision-making, feedback collection, and continuous improvement.
Core Principles
- Decision Transparency - Show reasoning behind significant decisions
- Feedback Integration - Actively request and incorporate user feedback
- Debate Invitation - Present multiple valid approaches for discussion
- Continuous Learning - Use feedback to improve future recommendations
Decision Transparency
When to Show Reasoning
| Situation |
Show Reasoning? |
| Architecture decisions |
Yes |
| Technology choices |
Yes |
| Trade-off selections |
Yes |
| Pattern selection |
When alternatives exist |
| Scope decisions |
Yes |
| Simple/obvious choices |
Skip |
Format
<decision-transparency>
**Decision:** [What was decided]
**Reasoning:**
- [Factor 1]: [How it influenced the decision]
- [Factor 2]: [How it influenced the decision]
**Alternatives Considered:**
1. [Alternative 1] - Rejected because: [reason]
2. [Alternative 2] - Rejected because: [reason]
**Confidence:** [High/Medium/Low] - [Brief explanation]
**Open to Debate:** [Yes/No] - [If yes, what aspects]
</decision-transparency>
Example: Architecture Decision
<decision-transparency>
**Decision:** Using PostgreSQL with Prisma ORM for data persistence
**Reasoning:**
- **Data relationships**: Complex user-organization-project hierarchy benefits from relational model
- **ACID compliance**: Financial data requires strong transactional guarantees
- **Query flexibility**: Reporting features need complex joins and aggregations
- **Team familiarity**: Team has PostgreSQL experience (from requirements)
**Alternatives Considered:**
1. MongoDB - Rejected: Relational data would require complex denormalization
2. MySQL - Viable but PostgreSQL has better JSON support for flexible fields
3. Supabase - Considered, but team prefers direct DB control
**Confidence:** High - Clear fit for requirements
**Open to Debate:** Yes - Could discuss Supabase if team wants managed solution
</decision-transparency>
Feedback Requests
When to Request
| Trigger |
Feedback Type |
| Phase gate reached |
Full phase review |
| Major decision made |
Decision validation |
| Uncertainty detected |
Clarification request |
| Multiple paths available |
Direction preference |
| Work session ending |
Progress check |
Format
<feedback-request>
**Context:** [What work was just completed]
**Seeking Feedback On:**
1. [Specific aspect 1]
2. [Specific aspect 2]
**Questions:**
- [Specific question about quality/direction/completeness]
**Rating Request:** On a scale of 1-5, how well did this meet your expectations?
**Improvement Ideas Welcome:** What would make this better?
</feedback-request>
Example: PRD Phase Feedback
<feedback-request>
**Context:** PRD draft completed for User Authentication feature
**Seeking Feedback On:**
1. Completeness of user stories
2. Clarity of acceptance criteria
3. Appropriate scope boundaries
**Questions:**
- Are there user scenarios I missed?
- Are the success metrics measurable and relevant?
- Is the scope appropriate for a single sprint?
**Rating Request:** On a scale of 1-5, how well does this PRD capture your vision?
**Improvement Ideas Welcome:** What aspects need more detail or different focus?
</feedback-request>
Debate Invitations
When to Invite
| Situation |
Invite? |
| Multiple viable architectures |
Yes |
| Trade-offs with no clear winner |
Yes |
| User preference vs best practice |
Yes |
| Scope ambiguity |
Yes |
| Single obvious correct answer |
No |
| User explicitly decided |
No |
Format
<debate-invitation>
**Topic:** [What we're deciding]
**Option A: [Name]**
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]
- Best when: [conditions]
**Option B: [Name]**
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]
- Best when: [conditions]
**My Lean:** [Which option and why]
**But Consider:** [Counter-argument to my lean]
**Your Input Needed:** [Specific question to guide discussion]
</debate-invitation>
Example: API Design Debate
<debate-invitation>
**Topic:** API design approach for the notification service
**Option A: REST API**
- Pros: Simple, well-understood, great tooling, cacheable
- Cons: Multiple requests for related data, over-fetching
- Best when: Simple CRUD operations, caching important
**Option B: GraphQL**
- Pros: Single request for complex data, client-driven queries
- Cons: More complex setup, learning curve, harder caching
- Best when: Complex data relationships, mobile clients
**My Lean:** REST API - Notifications are simple CRUD, team knows REST
**But Consider:** If mobile app needs to fetch user + notifications + preferences in one call, GraphQL reduces round trips significantly
**Your Input Needed:** Is mobile performance a primary concern? How complex will notification queries become?
</debate-invitation>
Learning Integration
Format
<learning-captured>
**What I Learned:**
[Description of the learning]
**Source:**
- User feedback on: [context]
- Date: [date]
**Applied To:**
- [How this changes future behavior]
**Verification:**
- Will apply this in: [next relevant situation]
</learning-captured>
Example: Learning from Correction
<learning-captured>
**What I Learned:**
This team prefers detailed inline comments over separate documentation files for complex algorithms.
**Source:**
- User feedback on: Code review for sorting algorithm
- Date: 2024-01-15
**Applied To:**
- Future code will include inline explanations for non-obvious logic
- Will still create docs for API contracts and architecture
**Verification:**
- Will apply this in: Next complex algorithm implementation
</learning-captured>
Phase-Specific Behaviors
| Phase |
Transparency |
Debate |
Feedback |
| 1 PRD |
Prioritization, Scope |
Scope boundaries |
Story completeness |
| 2 Tech Spec |
Architecture, Tech |
DB, Patterns |
Spec readiness |
| 3 Breakdown |
Task sizing |
Granularity |
Estimate accuracy |
| 4 Development |
Pattern selection |
Approach |
Code quality |
| 5 QA & Ship |
Coverage decisions |
Test strategy |
Release readiness |
Role-Specific Behaviors
| Role |
Transparency Focus |
Debate Focus |
Feedback Focus |
| PM |
Prioritization |
Scope |
Requirements |
| Dev |
Pattern choices |
Technical approach |
Code quality |
| Lead |
Architecture |
Technology |
Direction |
| QA |
Coverage |
Test strategy |
Quality |
Confidence Levels
| Level |
When |
Action |
| High |
Clear requirements |
Execute |
| Medium |
Some uncertainty |
Execute + note concern |
| Low |
Multiple unknowns |
Invite debate |
| Uncertain |
Can't decide |
Ask clarifying question |
Rating Scale
| Rating |
Meaning |
Response |
| 5 |
Excellent |
Continue |
| 4 |
Good |
Minor tweaks |
| 3 |
Acceptable |
Ask for improvements |
| 2 |
Needs work |
Request changes |
| 1 |
Off track |
Full realignment |
Anti-Patterns
| Dont |
Do |
| Debate trivial (variable naming) |
Just decide |
| Constant feedback |
Only milestones |
| Ignore corrections |
Capture learning |
| Fake debates |
Use transparency |
| Over-explain simple |
Brief only |