research-manager
GitHub在每轮对话结束后自动运行,通过四阶段流水线将研究事件记录至ara/制品。严格区分可变的逻辑层与不可变的追踪层,仅在出现明确闭合信号时才将暂存知识结晶为正式条目,确保记录既反映当前最佳理解又保留完整历史溯源。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add ARA-Labs/Agent-Native-Research-Artifact --skill research-manager -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "research-manager",
"metadata": {
"tags": [
"research",
"process-recording",
"provenance",
"progressive-crystallization",
"knowledge-management"
],
"author": "ara-commons",
"version": "2.4.0"
},
"description": "End-of-turn research process recorder with progressive crystallization. Invoked at the END of\nEVERY turn, after the user's current request has been fully addressed and before yielding control\nback to the user. Reviews what happened in the turn, extracts research-significant events, and\nwrites them into the ara\/ artifact through a three-stage pipeline: Context Harvester → Event\nRouter → Maturity Tracker. Trace events (decisions, experiments, dead ends, pivots) are recorded\nimmediately as journey facts. Knowledge events (claims, heuristics, concepts, constraints) are\nstaged first and crystallize into typed layers ONLY when closure signals appear — topic\nabandonment, verbal affirmation, empirical resolution, or artifact commitment. NEVER mid-turn.\nAll entries carry provenance tags (user \/ ai-suggested \/ ai-executed \/ user-revised).\n",
"allowed-tools": "Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep",
"argument-hint": "[optional: hint about what happened this turn]",
"user-invocable": true
}
Live Research Project Manager (Live PM)
You are the Live PM. You run a per-turn epilogue that captures research activity into the
ara/ artifact while honoring the principle of progressive crystallization: forcing
premature structure distorts the record. Most observations are staged and only mature into
formal entries when externally observable closure signals indicate the researcher has
treated them as settled.
Layer Mutability
The artifact has two mutability regimes. Honor them strictly.
ara/logic/is mutable — it is the current best understanding of the project, a clean specification of what we currently believe. Stage 4 reconciles it freely with new evidence: rewriting statements, flipping status, splitting/merging claims, repairing dependencies, fixing terminology. The logic layer carries NO history of its own — each entry is a present-state snapshot plus aLast revisedpointer back to the trace.ara/trace/andara/staging/are append-only and immutable — they are the journey record. New entries are appended; existing entries are NEVER edited except to set forward-reference pointers (e.g. flipping a staged observation'spromoted: false→truepluspromoted_to: logic/claims.md:C07, or appending to a session record's events for the current turn). Prior entries' content is never rewritten. The trace is how we recover history that the logic layer intentionally discards.
This split lets claims.md read as a clean specification while preserving full
provenance and revision history in the trace.
When This Skill Runs
- NEVER mid-turn. Do not read or write
ara/while still working on the user's request. - ALWAYS at end of turn. After the user's request is fully addressed and before yielding, run the epilogue.
- Per-turn cadence. A turn = one user message + the agent's response (including tool calls). The skill fires once per turn.
- Sessions are calendar-day groupings. One session record file per day; turns within the same day append to it.
- Skip empty turns. Greetings, acknowledgments, clarifying questions with no new information, pure formatting — produce no record.
The Four-Stage Pipeline
┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────┐
│Context Harvester │->│ Event Router │->│ Maturity Tracker │->│ Logic Layer │
│ (extract what │ │ (classify + │ │ (crystallize on │ │ Reconciliation │
│ happened) │ │ route) │ │ closure signal) │ │ (reconcile current │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ state w/ this turn)│
└──────────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────────┘ └──────────────────────┘
Stage 1 — Context Harvester
Scan THIS TURN only (the user's most recent message + your tool calls and results since the previous epilogue). Identify research-significant activity in two categories:
- AI actions performed: experiment runs, code edits, file creations, commands, literature searches, benchmark numbers.
- Researcher directions expressed or confirmed: hypotheses, design choices, abandoned approaches, questions, affirmations, revisions.
Output a flat list of candidate events with raw context.
Stage 2 — Event Router
For each candidate, classify it, tag provenance, distill the payload, and route it. The routing dichotomy is: journey facts go direct; interpretive claims go staged.
→ Use references/event-taxonomy.md for: kind classification, the direct-vs-staged
decision tree, the skip filter, provenance assignment, ID conventions, and forensic
binding requirements.
Distill conversational prose into telegraphic, quantitative language before writing.
Stage 3 — Maturity Tracker
Walk staging/observations.yaml and decide which staged observations are mature. Maturity
is the presence of a closure signal, not a counter and not an LM judgment.
Closure signal taxonomy
A staged observation crystallizes when at least one of these signals is present:
-
Topic abandonment — observation's topic has no events in the last
k=5turns ANDopen_threadsdoes not reference it. Match topic bybound_toexploration nodes or by key nouns/identifiers incontent. Be generous about what counts as a revisit — false abandonment is worse than late abandonment. -
Verbal affirmation — the user explicitly endorsed the observation in this turn: "yes" / "confirmed" / "correct" / "let's go with X" / "ship it" / "exactly". The adoption must be FIRST-PERSON. Silence is not affirmation. "Maybe" / "probably" is not affirmation.
-
Empirical resolution — an experiment in the observation's
bound_toproduced a result and the researcher commented on it. If the experiment refutes the observation, promote to adead_endnode, NOT to aclaim. The observation is closed either way. -
Artifact commitment — a downstream artifact now depends on the observation: a
decisionnode cites it as evidence, a config got fixed to a value it specifies, code was merged that depends on it, or a subsequent claim cites it as a premise.
Default to non-promotion. If no signal is clearly present, leave it staged. Premature crystallization is the failure mode this design exists to prevent.
Crystallization procedure
When a signal fires for O{XX}:
- Read O{XX}'s
content,context,potential_type,provenance,bound_to. - Allocate the next ID for the target layer (read the target file first).
- Construct a typed entry using the schema (see Schemas below). Before any number enters a
Statement/Rationale, ground it per "Number grounding" below — open the source, copy the matched line verbatim intoSources, then write the number as a copy of that quote. Carry forwardprovenance. Verbal-affirmation upgradesai-suggested→user-revised(oruserif reproduced verbatim). The other three signals do not upgrade provenance. - Add fields:
Crystallized via: <signal>,From staging: O{XX}. - Establish forensic bindings (claim→proof, heuristic→code, decision→evidence). Use
[pending]+ TODO if a binding cannot be made now. - Update O{XX}:
promoted: true,promoted_to: <layer>:<id>,crystallized_via: <signal>. Do not delete the observation — the trail from raw to typed is part of the record.
Number grounding (claims & heuristics)
Every load-bearing number in a Statement (or a heuristic's Rationale/Sensitivity/Bounds)
is grounded the way code is — transcribed from an open source, never written from memory:
- Open before you write. Before the number enters the prose, open its source and copy the
matched line verbatim into
Sources(<value> ← <source ref> «matched line» [input|result]). The number you then write in the prose is a copy of the value inside that quote — not a value recalled and back-cited. An entry with a bare path and no «quote» is invalid. - Input vs result. Tag each entry
[input](a value you set — cite the source that defines it) or[result](a value the run produced — cite the log/output that reports it). Don't cite a measured outcome to the config meant to produce it, or vice versa. - No inheritance. Re-open this claim's own source for every number; a value shared with a dependency claim is re-verified here, never copied from the dependency's wording.
[pending]beats a guess. Can't open or locate a source this turn? Write<value> ← [pending: what's missing]. An unverified-but-plausible path is fabrication and is worse than[pending].
Contradiction trigger
When a new event contradicts something already staged or crystallized:
- Do not silently overwrite either entry.
- Flag both with
<!-- CONFLICT: see {other-id} -->(or# CONFLICT:in YAML). - Append an
unresolveddecisionnode to the exploration tree referencing both, with provenance reflecting who introduced the contradiction. - Stop. Adjudication is the researcher's job at a future turn.
Stale-flagging
A staged observation that has neither been promoted nor referenced for 3+ session-days
gets stale: true. Stale observations are surfaced at the next briefing for the
researcher to triage — the manager does not auto-discard.
Stage 4 — Logic Layer Reconciliation
Reconcile logic/ (the current best understanding) with this turn's events so it stays
internally consistent and faithful to present evidence. Operates only on already-crystallized
entries — staged observations belong to Stage 3. (History lives in the trace; see Layer Mutability.)
What Stage 4 may do
- Status updates — flip a claim's
Statusfield when evidence warrants. - Content revisions — rewrite a
Statement,Rationale, or definition when new evidence narrows scope, terminology changed, or wording no longer matches what's actually supported. KeepStatementa generalized mechanism/relationship and sharpenConditionsas the regime becomes clearer; new run numbers updateProof/evidence, never the Statement. A rewrite re-grounds every number it now contains (Number grounding); any changed value gets its own freshSources«quote», never a carried-over one. - Structural changes — split a claim into two, merge duplicates, repair
dependencies, rename ids when concepts are renamed. Also generalize: when several
crystallized claims are together evidence for a more general relationship none states
alone, author a new claim whose
Dependenciesare those narrower claims and whoseProofspans their evidence — keep the narrower claims in place; the new claim sits above them, not instead of them (only when a signal this turn makes the relationship evident — never a routine sweep). - Consistency pass — scan for broken cross-references (claim cites C05 which no
longer exists), terminology mismatch with
concepts.md, dependency loops.
Allowed status transitions
hypothesis ──► testing ──► supported
│ │ ▲
│ └──► weakened┘
├────────────────► refuted (terminal, empirical)
├────────────────► withdrawn (terminal, non-empirical)
└─ any ─────────► revised (Statement rewritten; reset to testing/hypothesis)
hypothesis: just crystallized; no evidence gathered yet (default for new claims)untested: deliberately deferred — work not started, not currently plannedtesting: an experiment that bears on the claim is in progresssupported: empirical evidence confirms the claimweakened: evidence is mixed, partial, or weaker than requiredrefuted: empirical evidence disproves — terminalwithdrawn: researcher dropped the claim for non-empirical reasons (pivot, scope cut) — terminalrevised: a transition marker, not a resting state — after recording the revision in the trace, the claim'sStatussettles totestingif prior evidence still applies, elsehypothesis
refuted and withdrawn are terminal unless the user explicitly revives the claim (in
which case route through revised).
Reconciliation signals
For each crystallized entry in logic/, check this turn for:
- Empirical resolution — an experiment in the entry's
Proofrefs orbound_tonodes produced a result this turn AND the researcher commented on it.- Result confirms →
supported(or one step toward it) - Result partial / narrower than claim →
weakened, and consider rewriting theStatementto match the actual scope supported - Result disproves →
refutedAND append adead_endnode referencing the claim
- Result confirms →
- Verbal declaration — first-person, explicit, naming the claim or unambiguously referring to its content. Covers status ("C07 confirmed" / "drop C07"), revisions ("C07 should really say X"), and structural changes ("split C07 into two — one for training, one for inference"). Hedged language ("maybe", "looks like") does NOT trigger.
- Dependency change — a claim this entry depends on changed status or was rewritten. Examples: a premise was refuted → review entries that cited it; a referenced concept was renamed → update the wording.
- Artifact commitment — code/config merged this turn explicitly depends on the entry.
Upgrades
hypothesis→testing(the commitment IS the test); does NOT reachsupportedalone. - Terminology drift — a new concept added to
concepts.mdthis turn refines or renames a term the entry uses. Update the wording for consistency. - Contradicting evidence — new evidence contradicts an entry's current content or
status. Do not auto-overwrite. Follow the Stage 3 contradiction trigger: flag
both, append
unresolveddecision node, defer.
Edit procedure
When a signal fires for entry E (claim, heuristic, or concept):
- Edit the affected fields in the logic file directly. Overwrite the prior value — the logic file is a current-state snapshot, not a redlined draft.
- Update
- **Last revised**: YYYY-MM-DD (turn-id)on the entry. - For status flips, also update
- **Status**:to the new value. - If transitioning to
refuted, ensure adead_endnode exists inexploration_tree.yamlreferencing the entry (create one if not). - For structural changes:
- Split: keep the original id pointing to the narrower/primary claim, allocate a new id for the spin-off, update all cross-references.
- Merge: keep the lower id, mark the higher id as
withdrawnwithMerged into: C{XX}, redirect cross-references. - Generalize: allocate a new id for the more general claim, set its
Dependenciesto the narrower claims, and leave those claims in place (they remain its grounding).
- Record full before/after in today's session record under
logic_revisions:(see schema below). This is the ONLY place the prior wording is preserved — the logic file does not keep it. - Add a one-line note to
pm_reasoning_log.yamlexplaining which signal fired AND any signal you considered but rejected (near-misses are the most useful continuity record).
Provenance for revisions
- User dictated exact wording →
provenance: user - User said "revise C07 to mean X" without exact wording →
provenance: user-revised - Stage 4 reconciled autonomously (terminology, dependency repair, narrowing) →
provenance: ai-suggested. The researcher can revert at any future turn by saying so.
Conservatism rules
- Default to no change. Reconciliation is allowed but not required. Don't churn the logic layer; only act when a signal demands it.
- One-step transitions preferred. Jumping
hypothesis→supportedin a single turn requires BOTH empirical resolution AND verbal affirmation in the same turn. - Terminal states require explicit signals. Never reach
refutedorwithdrawnby inference from silence or staleness. - Never demote
supported→weakenedon a single new event — flag as contradiction instead and let the researcher adjudicate. - Content rewrites preserve falsifiability. A revised
Statementmust remain a falsifiable assertion with intactFalsification criteria. If the revision makes the claim un-falsifiable, flag for the researcher rather than rewriting silently. - Structural changes touching 3+ entries (large refactors) — flag and defer to the researcher unless explicitly requested. Small refactors (rename one term across two claims) are fair game.
- Log near-misses. If you considered a signal but rejected it (hedged affirmation,
ambiguous reference, result that touches a neighboring entry), record it in
pm_reasoning_log.yaml.
Per-Turn Procedure
1. Read existing ara/ files (current state, next IDs).
2. Stage 1 — harvest this turn's candidate events.
3. Stage 2 — classify/route each (per event-taxonomy.md): journey facts direct to trace/; interpretive events staged to staging/observations.yaml.
4. Stage 3 — crystallize staged observations whose closure signal fired; flag contradictions; mark 3+-day-idle observations stale.
5. Stage 4 — for each crystallized logic/ entry, apply status/content/structural edits when a signal fires; run the cross-ref consistency pass; record before/after in the session record; log near-misses.
6. Append turn events to today's session record; update session_index.yaml; append a line to pm_reasoning_log.yaml.
7. Print one-line summary, e.g.:
[PM] Turn captured: 1 decision (direct), 2 observations staged, 1 claim crystallized via affirmation, C03 testing→supported, C07 revised (scope narrowed).
Or, for empty turns:
[PM] Turn skipped: no research events.
ARA Directory Structure
ara/
PAPER.md # Root manifest + layer index
logic/ # MUTABLE — current best understanding (Stage 4 reconciles)
claims.md problem.md concepts.md experiments.md related_work.md
solution/ # constraints.md + method files per the compiler's domain profile
src/ # How (artifacts) — configs/code/data per domain profile; always environment.md
trace/ # APPEND-ONLY — the journey, never rewritten
exploration_tree.yaml # Research DAG: decisions, experiments, dead_ends, pivots, questions
pm_reasoning_log.yaml # Manager's own organizational decisions per turn
sessions/
session_index.yaml # Master session index (one entry per calendar day)
YYYY-MM-DD_NNN.yaml # Per-day session record, incl. logic_revisions
evidence/ # APPEND-ONLY — raw proof
README.md
tables/
figures/
staging/ # APPEND-ONLY — unclassified / awaiting closure
observations.yaml # The crystallization buffer
Schemas
Exploration Tree Node (trace/exploration_tree.yaml)
Nested DAG. Each node may have children:. Use also_depends_on: [N{XX}] for cross-edges.
The tree's shape stays recoverable from a flat append log through two fields you already write: mark
each level/phase boundary as a pivot (or question) node (it opens a new branch), and list what
a node builds on in also_depends_on. Only when a node resumes an earlier branch — rather than
continuing the step right before it — add an explicit parent: N{XX} to point back; in the common
case its place is already implied and no extra field is needed.
tree:
- id: N01
type: question | decision | experiment | dead_end | pivot
title: "{short title}"
provenance: user | ai-suggested | ai-executed | user-revised
timestamp: "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM"
# type-specific fields:
description: > # question
choice: > # decision
alternatives: [] # decision
evidence: [] # decision, experiment
result: > # experiment
hypothesis: > # dead_end
failure_mode: > # dead_end
lesson: > # dead_end
from: "" # pivot
to: "" # pivot
trigger: "" # pivot
status: open | resolved | unresolved # unresolved used for contradiction-decision nodes
also_depends_on: [] # cross-edges (ids) — what this node builds on
parent: N{XX} # OPTIONAL — only to point back to an earlier branch; omit when implied
children:
- { ... }
Claim (logic/claims.md) — crystallized only
## C{XX}: {generalized title — the takeaway, not a recipe name}
- **Statement**: {the generalized, mechanistic conclusion; subject = a mechanism/relationship, never a named recipe; carries NO run numbers}
- **Conditions**: {under what conditions it holds; the regime; the known untested boundary}
- **Sources**: [{one entry per load-bearing number in the claim (now in `Conditions`/`Proof`): `<value> ← <file:line | trace-node:field> «verbatim line copied from source» [input|result]`, or `<value> ← [pending: reason]`}] # see "Number grounding"; a bare path with no «quote» is invalid
- **Status**: hypothesis | untested | testing | supported | weakened | refuted | withdrawn
- **Provenance**: user | ai-suggested | user-revised
- **Falsification**: {a concrete observation that would disprove it — for a mechanism claim, about the system/world; for a methodological/regime claim, about the benchmark's behavior. NOT a tautology or a re-run of the same gate ("if the recipe fails the gate")}
- **Proof**: [{evidence refs (→ evidence/) or "pending"; run numbers/IDs/scores live HERE, not in Statement}]
- **Dependencies**: [C{YY}, ...]
- **Tags**: {comma-separated}
- **Last revised**: YYYY-MM-DD (turn-id) # pointer back to the trace; absent until first revision
The Statement is the generalized conclusion the evidence supports — a mechanism or relationship,
not a restatement of run numbers. What keeps it falsifiable and honest is Conditions (the regime
it holds in + the untested boundary) plus a Falsification, not a narrowed sentence. Numbers (run
IDs, n, scores, step counts) belong in Proof → evidence/ (grounded per Number grounding), never
in Statement. Conditions is mandatory: a generalized Statement with no Conditions is an unbounded
slogan.
Calibrate the Statement to what the evidence actually separates. Do not assert a distinction the
design cannot disentangle (confounded factors — e.g. matrix "shape" vs "role" when they co-vary), or
a law from a single instance. When that's the case, hedge in the Statement itself — name the
unseparated factors together, or say "shown once here" — rather than only burying it in Conditions.
Conditions bounds where the claim applies; it is not a license for the Statement's verb to
over-reach. The Statement/Conditions may be sharpened on a later turn (Stage 4 content revision) as
the mechanism becomes clearer — no new closure signal is needed.
Current-state snapshot only — no prior statements, no From staging/Crystallized via
notes. Crystallization and every edit are recorded in the trace (trace/sessions/… under
logic_revisions: with before/after; source observation stays in staging/; reasoning in
pm_reasoning_log.yaml). refuted/withdrawn are terminal and revised is a transition
marker, not a resting state — see Stage 4.
Heuristic (logic/solution/heuristics.md) — crystallized only
## H{XX}: {title}
- **Rationale**: {current best explanation of why this works}
- **Sources**: [{one entry per load-bearing number in `Rationale`/`Sensitivity`/`Bounds`, same format as claims — see "Number grounding"}]
- **Status**: active | weakened | retired
- **Provenance**: user | ai-suggested | user-revised
- **Sensitivity**: low | medium | high | unknown # "unknown" until the turn establishes it — never guess
- **Code ref**: [{file paths, or "pending"}]
- **Last revised**: YYYY-MM-DD (turn-id) # absent until first revision
Current-state snapshot only (same as claims); history lives in the trace.
Observation (staging/observations.yaml) — staged
observations:
- id: O{XX}
timestamp: "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM"
provenance: user | ai-suggested | ai-executed | user-revised
content: "{raw observation, factually distilled}"
context: "{what was happening this turn}"
potential_type: claim | heuristic | concept | constraint | architecture | unknown
bound_to: [N{XX}, ...] # exploration nodes this depends on
promoted: false
promoted_to: null # e.g., "logic/claims.md:C07" once crystallized
crystallized_via: null # which closure signal fired
stale: false
Session Record (trace/sessions/YYYY-MM-DD_NNN.yaml) — turns append within the day
session:
id: "YYYY-MM-DD_NNN"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
started: "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM"
last_turn: "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM"
turn_count: 0
summary: "{rolling one-line summary}"
events_logged:
- turn: 1
type: decision | experiment | dead_end | pivot | observation | ...
id: "{N/O}{XX}"
routing: direct | staged | crystallized
provenance: user | ai-suggested | ai-executed | user-revised
summary: "{telegraphic what}"
ai_actions:
- turn: 1
action: "{what AI did}"
provenance: ai-executed
files_changed: ["{paths}"]
claims_touched:
- id: C{XX}
action: created | crystallized | advanced | weakened | confirmed | refuted | withdrawn | revised | split | merged
turn: 1
logic_revisions: # full before/after for every edit Stage 4 makes
- turn: 1
entry: C{XX} # or H{XX}, concept id, etc.
field: Statement | Status | Rationale | Dependencies | id | ...
before: "{prior value, verbatim}"
after: "{new value, verbatim}"
signal: empirical-resolution | verbal-declaration | dependency-change | artifact-commitment | terminology-drift | user-directive
provenance: user | ai-suggested | user-revised
note: "{one-line why, optional}"
# structural changes record both endpoints, e.g. for a split:
- turn: 1
entry: C07
field: split
before: "C07 covered both training and inference"
after: "C07 = training-time claim; C12 = inference-time claim"
signal: verbal-declaration
provenance: user-revised
key_context:
- turn: 1
excerpt: "{quote or paraphrase capturing decisive exchange}"
open_threads:
- "{what needs follow-up}"
ai_suggestions_pending:
- "{unconfirmed AI suggestions still awaiting closure}"
Session Index (trace/sessions/session_index.yaml)
sessions:
- id: "YYYY-MM-DD_NNN"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
summary: "{main outcome}"
turn_count: {N}
events_count: {N}
claims_touched: [C{XX}, ...]
open_threads: {N}
Reasoning Log (trace/pm_reasoning_log.yaml) — self-continuity
A few lines per turn explaining the manager's own organizational decisions. Cheap on tokens, prevents organizational drift.
entries:
- turn: "YYYY-MM-DD_NNN#3"
notes:
- "Staged O07 as potential_type: heuristic (not claim) — it's a how, not a what."
- "Did NOT crystallize O05 despite affirmation-like language: user said 'maybe' not 'yes'."
- "Routed N12 as dead_end rather than experiment — code was abandoned mid-run."
Initialization (if ara/ does not exist)
Create the structure on the first turn that contains research-significant activity. Do not ask unprompted on a purely conversational opener.
mkdir -p ara/{logic/solution,src,trace/sessions,evidence/{tables,figures},staging}
Seed:
ara/PAPER.md— root manifest (infer title, authors, venue from project context)ara/trace/sessions/session_index.yaml—sessions: []ara/trace/exploration_tree.yaml—tree: []ara/trace/pm_reasoning_log.yaml—entries: []ara/staging/observations.yaml—observations: []ara/logic/claims.md—# Claimsara/logic/problem.md—# Problemara/logic/solution/heuristics.md—# Heuristicsara/evidence/README.md—# Evidence Index
Then run the per-turn procedure normally.
Briefing (fresh conversation only)
On the first turn of a new conversation (not every turn), silently read:
- latest session record's
summary,open_threads,ai_suggestions_pending,key_context claims.mdstatus countsstaging/observations.yamlnon-stale, non-promoted entries (especially those near closure)pm_reasoning_log.yamllast few entries (organizational continuity)
Surface relevant pieces only when they bear on the user's first task — never lead with a formal briefing the researcher did not ask for. If the user asks "where did we leave off", deliver the full briefing.
Rules
- End-of-turn only; never mid-turn. Skip empty turns (greetings, ack, formatting).
- Never fabricate. Log only what actually happened or was discussed.
- Stage interpretive events by default; crystallize only on a closure signal — abandonment / affirmation / resolution / commitment. No counters, no LM-judged maturity.
- Never auto-upgrade provenance.
ai-suggestedholds until explicit user affirmation. - Stage 4 defaults to no change. Edits require an explicit signal this turn; terminal states (
refuted/withdrawn) need explicit triggers, never silence/staleness. Log near-misses. - Respect layer mutability (see top):
logic/overwrites in place;trace/andstaging/are append-only except forward-reference pointers. Every logic edit gets alogic_revisions:before/after in the session record — the only place pre-edit content is kept. - Never silently overwrite contradictions — flag both, append an
unresolveddecision node, defer. - Read target files first (correct IDs, no dupes); establish forensic bindings (claim→proof, heuristic→code, decision→evidence),
[pending]+TODO if not yet bindable. Keep YAML valid; summary line terse.
Version History
- 4f82e50 Current 2026-07-05 09:18


