From 1cb6f99df1ed893afe997065f056bfab1acbc47f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Deepanshu Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2026 07:08:54 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] docs(CLAUDE.md): auto-capture review learnings without being asked This session found three real bugs a human maintainer caught after eight rounds of bot review and live-proxy verification all missed them. Add a standing instruction to write learnings.md entries the moment a root cause is understood, in both the repo-wide file and any relevant skill's own file, instead of relying on being asked. --- CLAUDE.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/CLAUDE.md b/CLAUDE.md index 930825aeb89..ad1a6a9f336 100644 --- a/CLAUDE.md +++ b/CLAUDE.md @@ -74,6 +74,8 @@ Do not add `Co-Authored-By: Claude` or any Claude attribution to commit messages When working on a PR, keep the PR description in sync with new commits being made +Whenever a review round, bot or human, finds a real bug that survived multiple prior rounds of automated review or your own testing, or you learn a non-obvious codebase fact or process gap that would have changed your approach had you known it upfront, capture it immediately in `litellm/learnings.md` without waiting to be asked. If the finding is specific to a skill's own process rather than the codebase itself, also add it to that skill's own `learnings.md` (e.g. `.claude/skills/implement-litellm-plan/learnings.md`, `.claude/skills/review-loop/learnings.md`). Before appending, skim the file for an existing entry covering the same root cause and extend or correct that one instead of adding a near-duplicate. Write the entry as soon as you understand the root cause, not just at the end of the session, and be direct about what was missed rather than softening it + All GitHub comments must be human-readable and 15-25 words max Monkeypatching attributes of a class to do testing is an anti-pattern. Prefer dependency-injecting things into classes. That way, at unit test time, you can pass a mocked dependency in