Academy

The self-learning colleague: a roadmap, not a release

Today, an agent begins each conversation anew and learns nothing from yesterday's work. What follows is a vision, not a current capability: an agent that learns from its own work.

The Felesh team 4 min

First, let us be clear: what follows is a vision, not a capability we have today. This is a forward-looking roadmap — a direction we are building toward, but have not yet reached. We want to discuss a concept that matters to us: an agent that learns from its own work.

Today: starting from scratch

Today, an intelligent agent begins each conversation almost anew. It may have access to memory, but it does not learn from the quality of its own work yesterday. If one of its proposals was rejected, that rejection does not become a lasting lesson. If a pattern exists in its mistakes, the agent cannot see it. The agent works, but it does not reflect on that work.

A rejection lost at the boundaryMonday: the agent proposes sending the renewal reminder on Friday, and the reviewer rejects it: no reminders after Thursday. The conversation ends and the note is lost at the boundary. Tuesday’s conversation starts empty, proposes the Friday reminder again, and has no earlier note to stop it.Monday conversationTuesday conversationproposessend reminder on Fridayreviewer: rejectedno reminders after Thunote lost at boundaryproposessend reminder on Fridaysame proposal againearlier notes: none
Each conversation starts empty, so the rejection is lost at the boundary and the same proposal comes back and is rejected again.

The vision: meta-cognition

We are exploring a layer of meta-cognition: the ability for an agent to evaluate its own output. In this vision, the agent maintains a lasting picture of its behaviour — facts about how it has acted, notes from human-reviewer corrections, and patterns in its history of accepted and rejected proposals. The agent reads this record and gradually adjusts its behaviour. Each human correction, instead of being forgotten, becomes a lesson.

A correction that changes the next proposalFour stations in a loop. The agent proposes sending the renewal reminder on Friday. The reviewer answers: no reminders after Thursday. The record keeps the lesson, no Friday reminders, and the next proposal moves to Thursday. The loop is a vision and is not built yet.proposessend reminder on Fridayreviewerno reminders after Thurecordno Friday remindersnext proposalsend reminder on Thuvision: not built yet
A correction goes into a lasting record and the next proposal changes, but this loop is a roadmap direction, not something shipped.

Why we haven’t built it yet

If this concept is valuable, why isn’t it here today? We have deliberately deferred it. At the current stage, the complexity and cost of this layer are not justified by the benefit it brings. Our priority is establishing solid foundations — a system that is reliable and understandable today. Meta-cognition is a layer that builds upon those foundations, not before them. This is a conscious decision, not an oversight.

Foundation first, meta-cognition deferredThree parts in a table. A rejection, the reviewer’s rule no reminders after Thursday, is what meta-cognition would read to change the next proposal before it is sent; meta-cognition is deferred, not built. The foundation is the priority today: a system that is reliable and understandable today. Meta-cognition builds on the foundation, not before it.partwhat it does for the remindera rejectionreviewer: no reminders after Thumeta-cognitiondeferredreads the rejection, changesthe next proposal firstfoundationpriority todaya system that is reliable andunderstandable todaymeta-cognition builds on the foundation, not before it
The layer that learns from rejections sits on top of a foundation that must be reliable and understandable, and we deliberately deferred it.

Why we talk about it anyway

If we have not built it, why discuss it now? Because architectural direction matters. We want to be clear about what we are building today and what we aspire to tomorrow — without blurring the line between the two. The self-learning colleague is an aspiration we believe in and leave room for in our current design, but we do not sell it as today’s reality.

Putting it together

The difference between a tool and a colleague is often just this: a tool is identical each time it runs, while a colleague improves with time. We are building toward this vision — an agent that learns from its own work. But until the day it arrives, we will call it what it is: a forward-looking roadmap, not a promise for today.

Same answer every run, or a changed oneTwo columns over three runs. A tool offers 20% off in runs 1, 2 and 3, and the reviewer rejects runs 2 and 3 for the same reason. A colleague, if built, offers 20% off in run 1, then 10% in runs 2 and 3, after the correction: no discounts over 10%. The colleague column is a vision, not built.a toolsame answer each runa colleaguechanges after a correctionvision: not built yetrun 1 · 20% offrun 2 · 20% offrun 3 · 20% offrun 1 · 20% offrun 2 · 10% offrun 3 · 10% offrejected again, every runthe correction is keptcorrection: no discounts over 10%
A tool gives the same wrong answer on every run; a colleague that learns from corrections would change its next proposal.