coopersimson96

Aar Loop — AI skill for Claude Code

AI community

Run an After Action Review after any AI session and write concrete lessons so your agent stops repeating mistakes.

How to install Aar Loop

This entry records only its repository, not the path inside it, so there is no exact command to give. Open coopersimson96/aar-loop and copy the folder into ~/.claude/skills/, or the file into ~/.claude/agents/.

What Aar Loop does

Run an After Action Review after any AI session and write concrete lessons so your agent stops repeating mistakes. A manual Reflexion loop, built on the US Army's AAR method.

Alternatives in AI

  • Bmad Method — Breakthrough Method for Agile Ai Driven Development 42712 382 2 42.9k ★
  • Model Update — 增量更新财务模型 — 用新财报/新指引/修正假设重算 DCF 内在价值、Comps 隐含价、投资逻辑与目标价,输出 before→after delta 6.6k ★
  • Cwc Long Running Agents — Claude Code's built-in /goal command gives you a generator/evaluator loop out of the box: set a completion con 668 ★

README

AAR Loop

A human-run version of Reflexion for AI agents, built on a military method that's been standard practice for fifty years.

Run `/aar-loop` after any task or session. It does three things:

  1. Reviews the session with the US Army's 4-question After Action Review.
  2. Finds what's worth fixing and writes the improvement straight into your skills or rules files, so the fix is there before you need it again, not just written down somewhere.
  3. Saves the lessons to a persistent LESSONS.md file that your AI loads next time.

Point the next session at that file (and at whatever skill or rule got patched) and the agent stops repeating the same mistake. Run it every session and the agent compounds instead of restarting from zero each time.

Where the method comes from

The US Army formalized the After Action Review in the mid-1970s, in the years after Vietnam, as a structured debrief for training exercises. It became official doctrine in 1993 with field manual TC 25-20, and it's still run after every rotation at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, one of the most realistic combat training environments in the world. Fifty years of continuous use on one method, because the mechanism is simple and hard to argue with: separate the debrief from blame, ask what was supposed to happen versus what actually happened, and the gap tells you exactly what to fix before the next fight.

The 4 questions, verbatim:

  1. What was supposed to happen?
  2. What actually happened?
  3. Why was there a difference?
  4. What do we do the same or differently next time?

The research parallel

This is also, functionally, a manual version of **Reflexion** (Shinn et al., 2023, [arXiv:2303.11366](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366)): an agent framework where a model generates a verbal self-reflection after a failed attempt, stores it in an episodic memory buffer, and carries it into the next attempt. Reflexion agents that keep their reflections outperform agents that start ev