/lean-ctx-review

name: lean-ctx-review
description: Review how the lean-ctx ctx_* MCP tools performed in the current session and file upstream issues for confirmed problems. Use when the user asks to review/audit lean-ctx tool performance, says "lean-ctx review", asks why ctx_* tools failed or fell back to native tools, or wants to report a lean-ctx bug.

lean-ctx session review

Upstream repo: `yvgude/lean-ctx` (https://github.com/yvgude/lean-ctx).

Reads a Claude Code session transcript, so it applies to agents that write `~/.claude/projects/*/*.jsonl`. Other harnesses need their own extractor; the triage rules below are harness-independent.

1. Extract

Run from this skill's directory (needs `python3`):

python3 scripts/scan_session.py

Defaults to the newest transcript under `~/.claude/projects/*/` — the live Claude Code session. Pass a path to review a different one. `-d N` dumps call `#N` in full.

The script reports **facts, not verdicts**: every `ctx_*` call in order, which results the harness flagged `is_error`, which calls repeated identical arguments, which asked for `raw`/`fresh` output, and how many native `Read`/`Grep`/`Bash` calls happened. It deliberately does not guess which of those is a problem — that judgment is yours, below.

Transcripts run to megabytes, so read the table, not the raw JSONL.

2. Triage

**Start from `is_error`.** In practice every genuine tool failure carries it. Then read the call list for the softer signals: identical retries, `raw`/`fresh` re-reads, native calls clustered right after a `ctx_*` call, or a sequence that only completed once `ctx_*` was abandoned.

Before absolving anything, do these two things

Skipping them is how this review returns a false "nothing to report". Both cost one command each.

**Search the tracker for the guard or tool you are about to excuse.** Do this during triage, not at step 4. A closed issue defines intended behaviour: if a shipped fix says a form is supported and you just watched it fail, that is a regression and one of the most valuable things this review finds. It also stops you re-filing a settled design decision.

gh issue list --repo yvgude/lean-ctx --search "<guard or tool keyword>" --state all

**Probe the stated rationale — never accept a message's self-description.** An error explains itself, and that explanation can be wrong. Three checks, each one command:

• *Does the sanctioned alternative achieve the same thing?* If the block is

bypassable through a route the message itself recommends, it constrains syntax, not capability. Sometimes that is deliberate (structured input parses reliably where a shell string does not) — decide which, do not assume.

• *Does the stated reason match the observed rule?* Vary one axis at a time. A

guard blaming payload size that actually keys on path, or blaming a pipe on a command that is piped, is misdiagnosing itself.

• *Does the message contradict itself?* A rejection that also states the rejected

form is allowed is a finding on its own, whichever way the policy should go.

A wrong diagnostic is a real bug even when the block is correct: it sends the next caller down a route that cannot work.

Not a finding

• **Words inside returned content.** A file containing `http.StatusConflict`, a

`git rebase` printing `CONFLICT (content):`, `gh` returning `"mergeable":"CONFLICTING"`, a test run printing `not found`. The tool returned exactly what was asked for. Judge the tool's own behaviour, never the payload's vocabulary.

• **Self-reference.** Any result that quotes a previous scan, this skill, or a

transcript will echo every error word in it.

• **Guard blocks — only after they survive the probe above.** Inline env

overrides (`GIT_EDITOR=`), shell redirects (`>`/`>>`), non-allowlisted commands, paths outside the project root. "It offered an alternative and the alternative worked" is *not* enough to clear one: that is true of a guard whose reason is wrong, whose rule is different from its description, or that contradicts itself. Clear it only once the stated rationale holds up.

• **Malformed tool input.** `InputValidationError` on `__unparsedToolInput` is

the caller's own JSON serialization — commonly a raw tab or newline inside a string — rejected before lean-ctx ever ran.

• **My own wrong arguments**, a genuinely missing file, a failing build.

Confirmable

The tool did something wrong or unhelpful *given correct input*:

• wrong, lossy, or truncated output where the mode promises otherwise
• content injected into output documented as verbatim, or anything that breaks a

documented output format (e.g. corrupting batch-read separators)

• a crash, hang, or schema mismatch against the documented parameters
• a documented mode behaving differently than described
• a retry that only succeeded after dropping to native tools
• **a wrong or self-contradicting diagnostic**, even where the block itself is

right — naming the wrong cause sends the next caller down a route that cannot work, and costs more than the block did

• **a regression against a closed issue**: a shipped fix says the form is

supported, and it is not

3. Reproduce

**No minimal repro, no issue.** Re-run the exact tool and arguments. If it passes, try to isolate the trigger; if you cannot, do not file — report the observation to the user instead, saying plainly that it did not reproduce and what you tried. Guessing at internals is worse than silence.

`lean-ctx --version` for the version line.

Zero confirmed findings is a valid and common result. Say so and file nothing.

4. File

Only for confirmed findings, one issue per distinct problem. You searched the tracker during triage; widen it here if the finding shifted:

gh issue list --repo yvgude/lean-ctx --search "<keywords>" --state all

Skip if already reported — and read the close text before re-filing, since a closed issue may have already conceded the point you are ab