memory-md-management

Memory.md Management

Provides comprehensive project memory file management capabilities including auditing, quality assessment, and targeted improvements. This skill ensures the coding agent has optimal project context by maintaining high-quality documentation files such as CLAUDE.md.

Overview

Project memory files such as CLAUDE.md are the primary mechanism for providing project-specific context to coding agent sessions. This skill manages their complete lifecycle: discovery, quality assessment, reporting, and improvement. It follows a 5-phase workflow that ensures documentation is current, actionable, and concise.

The skill evaluates CLAUDE.md files against standardized quality criteria across 6 dimensions: Commands/Workflows, Architecture Clarity, Non-Obvious Patterns, Conciseness, Currency, and Actionability. Each file receives a score (0-100) and letter grade (A-F) with specific improvement recommendations.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• User explicitly asks to "check", "audit", "update", "improve", "fix", or "maintain" CLAUDE.md
• User mentions "CLAUDE.md quality", "documentation review", or "project memory optimization"
• A project memory file needs to be created from scratch for a new project
• User asks about improving Claude's understanding of the codebase
• Documentation has become stale or outdated
• Starting work on a new codebase and need to understand existing documentation
• User presses # during a session to incorporate learnings into a memory file

Trigger phrases: "audit CLAUDE.md", "check documentation quality", "improve project context", "review CLAUDE.md", "validate documentation"

Instructions

Phase 1: Discovery

Find all CLAUDE.md files in the repository:

find . -name "CLAUDE.md" -o -name ".claude.md" -o -name ".claude.local.md" 2>/dev/null | head -50

File Types & Locations:

| Type | Location | Purpose |

|------|----------|---------|

| Project root | ./CLAUDE.md | Primary project context (checked into git, shared with team) |

| Local overrides | ./.claude.local.md | Personal/local settings (gitignored, not shared) |

| Global defaults | ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md | User-wide defaults across all projects |

| Package-specific | ./packages/*/CLAUDE.md | Module-level context in monorepos |

| Subdirectory | Any nested location | Feature/domain-specific context |

Phase 2: Quality Assessment

For each CLAUDE.md file, read [references/quality-criteria.md](references/quality-criteria.md) and evaluate against these criteria:

| Criterion | Weight | What to Check |

|-----------|--------|---------------|

| Commands/workflows | 20 pts | Are build/test/deploy commands present and working? |

| Architecture clarity | 20 pts | Can Claude understand the codebase structure? |

| Non-obvious patterns | 15 pts | Are gotchas and quirks documented? |

| Conciseness | 15 pts | Is content dense without filler? |

| Currency | 15 pts | Does it reflect current codebase state? |

| Actionability | 15 pts | Are instructions executable and copy-paste ready? |

Quality Scores: A (90-100), B (70-89), C (50-69), D (30-49), F (0-29)

Phase 3: Quality Report Output

CRITICAL: Always output the quality report BEFORE making any updates.

Format:

## CLAUDE.md Quality Report

### Summary
- Files found: X
- Average score: X/100
- Files needing update: X

### File-by-File Assessment
#### 1. ./CLAUDE.md (Project Root)
**Score: XX/100 (Grade: X)**

| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Commands/workflows | X/20 | ... |
| Architecture clarity | X/20 | ... |
| Non-obvious patterns | X/15 | ... |
| Conciseness | X/15 | ... |
| Currency | X/15 | ... |
| Actionability | X/15 | ... |

**Issues:**
- [List specific problems]

**Recommended additions:**
- [List what should be added]

Phase 4: Targeted Updates

After report output, ask user for confirmation before updating.

Read [references/update-guidelines.md](references/update-guidelines.md) for detailed update principles.

Key principles:

1. Propose targeted additions only - commands, gotchas, patterns, configs
2. Keep it minimal - avoid obvious info, generic advice, one-off fixes
3. Show diffs - file, change (diff format), explanation

Diff format:

### Update: ./CLAUDE.md
**Why:** [Brief explanation of why this helps]

• ## Quick Start

+

• ```bash
• npm install
• npm run dev
• ```

Phase 5: Apply Updates

After user approval, use Edit tool to apply changes. Preserve existing content structure.

Examples

Example 1: Quality Assessment

User request: "Check if my CLAUDE.md is good"

Response:

~~~markdown

CLAUDE.md Quality Report

Summary

• Files found: 1
• Average score: 65/100
• Files needing update: 1

File-by-File Assessment

1. ./CLAUDE.md

Score: 65/100 (Grade: C)

| Criterion | Score | Notes |

|-----------|-------|-------|

| Commands/workflows | 10/20 | Only npm install documented |

| Architecture clarity | 15/20 | Basic tree, missing module relationships |

| Non-obvious patterns | 5/15 | No gotchas documented |

| Conciseness | 15/15 | Concise and dense |

| Currency | 10/15 | Some outdated paths |

| Actionability | 10/15 | Some vague instructions |

Issues:

• Missing test command
• Missing build command
• No documentation of auth flow complexity
• References to old src/structure

Recommended additions:

• Add Commands section with test/build
• Document auth module gotcha
• Update architecture paths

### Example 2: Creating from Scratch

**User request:** "Create a CLAUDE.md for this React project"

**Response:**

I'll create a CLAUDE.md for your React project. Let me first analyze the codebase structure.

[Scans package.json, src/, and key config files]

CLAUDE.md Quality Report

Summary

• Files found: 0
• Creating new CLAUDE.md at project root

Proposed CLAUDE.md Content:

Project Name

Commands

| Command | Description |

|---------|-------------|

| npm install | Install dependencies |

| npm run dev | Start dev server (Vite on port 5173) |

| npm run build | Production build |

| npm run test | Run Vitest tests |

| npm run lint | ESLint check |

Architecture

src/
├── components/    # Reusable UI components
├── pages/         # Route pages
├── hooks/         # Custom React hooks
├── lib/           # Utilities and API clients
└── main.tsx       # Entry point

Gotchas

• Vite requires files in public/ for static assets
• State updates in useEffect need proper dependency arrays

Shall I create this file?

Example 3: Update Proposal

User request: "Update my CLAUDE.md with what you learned"

Response:

### Update: ./CLAUDE.md

**Why:** Discovered that tests require database setup which wasn't documented.

Testing

• Prerequisites: Start test database first with docker-compose up -d test-db
• npm run test - Run all tests
• npm run test:unit - Unit tests only (no DB required)

Also found issue with API_BASE_URL:

Environment

• API_BASE_URL - API endpoint (default: localhost:3000)
• API_BASE_URL - API endpoint (required for production, defaults to http://localhost:3000 in dev)

Apply these changes?
~~~

## Best Practices

1. **Always read references before acting**: Quality criteria, templates, and update guidelines contain essential details
2. **Report before editing**: Never modify CLAUDE.md without first presenting a quality report
3. **Preserve existing structure**: When updating, maintain the existing organization and style
4. **Be project-specific**: Only add information specific to this codebase, not generic advice
5. **Verify commands work**: Before suggesting commands, mentally or actually verify they execute correctly
6. **Use progressive disclosure**: Keep SKILL.md lean, reference detailed rubrics in separate files
7. **Score consistently**: Apply the same scoring standards across all files for fair comparison

## Constraints and Warnings

1. **Never modify without approval**: Always get user confirmation before editing CLAUDE.md files
2. **Don't remove content without asking**: If suggesting deletions, explicitly mark them and get approval
3. **Respect `.claude.local.md`**: These are personal settings; never suggest modifying them in shared docs
4. **Avoid generic advice**: Do not add "write good code" type content - focus on project-specific patterns
5. **Keep diffs concise**: Show only the actual changes, not entire file contents
6. **Verify file paths**: Ensure all referenced files exist before documenting them
7. **Score objectively**: Use the rubric consistently; don't inflate scores for incomplete documentation