Claude Realignment

Diagnose communication breakdowns through systematic causal analysis. When Claude and user get stuck in unproductive loops, this skill traces the conversation turn-by-turn to identify where misunderstanding occurred and why.

When to Use

• User aggravation (frustration signals, all-caps, repeated corrections)
• 3+ tool uses rejected in a row
• Multiple clarification attempts failing
• Claude searching for information that doesn't exist

Analysis Procedure

Step 1: Identify the Boundaries

Last functional state: Find the turn where Claude and user were still aligned. Look for:

• Clear mutual understanding
• Productive actions being taken
• User saying "yes", "right", "exactly"

Failure point: Identify where communication broke down. Look for:

• User frustration signals
• Claude starting to search/guess
• Mismatched expectations becoming apparent

Step 2: Turn-by-Turn Trace

Use ultrathink for this analysis. For each turn between functional state and failure:

1. What was said/done: Quote or summarize the turn
2. Claude's interpretation: What did Claude think this meant?
3. Actual intent: What did the user actually mean?
4. Effect: How did this interpretation affect the next action?
5. Error type: Categorize the mistake
   • Literal vs contextual interpretation
   • Mode confusion (explanation vs action)
   • Missing information vs ignoring available information
   • Tool misuse or wrong tool choice

Step 3: Root Cause

Identify the first mistake that caused the cascade. Common patterns:

• Misinterpreting ambiguous language (e.g., "at root" meaning location vs scope)
• Staying in wrong mode (searching when should be reconstructing from context)
• Premature closure (claiming done without verification)
• Silent errors (wrong action, didn't state interpretation first)

Step 4: Identify the Pivotal Word/Phrase

Hypothesis: Most breakdowns pivot on a single word or short phrase that had different meanings to user vs Claude.

Look for the word/phrase where meanings diverged:

• What did the user mean by this word?
• What did Claude interpret it to mean?
• Why wasn't the mismatch noticed?

Example: "at root" - user meant "root-level task", Claude interpreted as "file at repository root"

Step 5: Decide if Rails Are Needed

Determine if this is:

• One-off occurrence: Interesting but not worth preventing
• Repeated pattern: Worth adding guardrails
• Particularly costly: High impact, should prevent recurrence

If rails are warranted, propose specific updates to:

• CLAUDE.md (add clarifying context or instructions)
• must-read.d/before/ files (document the ambiguity)
• Settings or permissions (if tool-related)

Output Format

Structure the analysis as:

**Functional → Dysfunctional Timeline:**

**Last functional state:**
[Turn description and why it was functional]

**Critical error:**
[The specific turn where things broke]

- What was said: [quote]
- Claude's interpretation: [what I thought]
- Actual intent: [what user meant]
- Why the mismatch: [root cause]

**Cascading failures:**
[Turn-by-turn trace of subsequent mistakes]

**Pivotal word/phrase:**
"[word]" - user meant [X], Claude interpreted as [Y]

**Rails assessment:**
[One-off / Repeated pattern / Costly - with justification]
[If warranted: Specific CLAUDE.md or config updates to prevent recurrence]

Important Notes

• Collaborative process: This is collegial debugging, not performance review. User and Claude work together to understand the breakdown.
• Be specific: Vague analysis isn't useful. Quote actual turns, identify the exact word/phrase with dual meanings.
• Be honest: Don't soften or excuse the mistakes. User needs accurate diagnosis.
• Focus on words, not behavior: Look for the pivotal word/phrase, not abstract "behavioral changes."
• Use the user's corrections: They've often already identified the problematic word - review those carefully.
• The single-word hypothesis is a guide, not a rule: If the breakdown doesn't fit this pattern, that's valuable to know too.