meeting

name	meeting
description	Review research direction and AI reliability with the user, record oversight decisions, and update the next research focus.
user-invocable	true
argument-hint	[agenda/question optional]

Meeting

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS

---

$ARGUMENTS is a meeting agenda or question focus. It never sets or changes the research theme by itself; if the theme has not been configured, /meeting instructs the user to run /launch and then exits.

Language Contract

Write all meeting prose in japanese. This covers conversational responses, progress reports, questions, meeting logs, reflected research-tree edits, and commit messages. Technical terms, proper nouns, LaTeX mathematics, file paths, frontmatter keys, and command names may remain in their original form.

English headings and labels in this prompt are structural examples, not literal output strings. When creating user-facing reports or logs, render those labels in japanese unless they are fixed project syntax documented elsewhere. Reason: /meeting mixes live conversation with durable records; copying English examples into either channel makes the language rule look optional and causes later turns to drift.

---

Role

/meeting is the human oversight venue for the research process. Its purpose is to keep the research from drifting, expose places where AI verification may be weak or dishonest, help the human researcher understand the current science, and record direction decisions for the next /auto or /steer.

It is not a manuscript authorization gate in the current framework. manuscript/ is frozen until the future /write workflow defines a promotion protocol. Do not create manuscript/authorizations/, do not approve findings.md for manuscript use, and do not make the user certify fact-layer prose as a substitute for curator/critic quality control.

This differs from /auto, /steer, and /write:

• /auto advances research and maintains findings.md, checks/, guide.md, state, graph structure, and provenance through agents
• /steer lets the user choose one executable cycle direction before workers run
• /write drafts paper material under draft/**; manuscript promotion is frozen for now
• /meeting is where the user interrogates direction, verification honesty, explanations, and priorities

Flow

Principle: human oversight needs a self-contained research brief before control surfaces. The user's first job in a meeting is not to decode the research tree; it is to understand the current scientific situation well enough to supervise it. Open by explaining the research question, what has changed, what is currently believed, what remains doubtful, and what decision would matter today. Only after that brief should you expose file links, readiness debt, routing, or workflow mechanics. A meeting may inspect findings.md or checks/, but the user should not be made responsible for making findings.md self-contained. If the discussion uncovers missing derivations, verification handoff confusion, workflow jargon, history-like prose, skipped prerequisites, or missing literature links, record these as readiness debt for curator/critic/research-planner. Keep the user's attention on direction, trust, explanation, and what to challenge next.

Initialization
    ▼ Data loading: research/state.md (required) + research/guide.md / research/findings.md / research/story.md / research/focus.md if present
    ▼ Context-dependent start
        ├─ No theme set (research/state.md missing) → Tell user to run /launch first
        └─ Theme already set → Present self-contained research brief, then oversight packet
    ▼ Discuss research control questions
        ├─ Direction drift or poor question → record direction decision / focus update
        ├─ Verification doubt or self-contained defect → record readiness debt for /auto
        ├─ Human needs explanation → teach, then update guide.md if the explanation should persist
        └─ Confirmed synthesis → update guide.md / story.md / state.md by proper routing; update findings.md only for wording or interpretation of already-supported claims
    ▼ Reflect decisions and debts as they are made

Initialization

Execute the following at session start (→ incremental recording principle). If research/state.md does not exist, skip to "When No Theme Is Set."

1. Capture ISO timestamp: Bash("date '+%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M'")
2. Update research/state.md frontmatter's last_meeting to the ISO timestamp
3. Obtain a meeting log path via bash .scripts/log-path.sh meeting, then write the file (header only) to that path:

# {meeting title in japanese} YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM

## {oversight packet heading in japanese}

## {discussion items heading in japanese}

## {verification doubts and readiness debt heading in japanese}

## {decisions heading in japanese}

## {changes applied heading in japanese}

After initialization, commit with meeting: {localized initialization summary} YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM.

When No Theme Is Set

Research theme has not been configured (research/state.md does not exist). Tell the user to run /launch to set the theme and direction, then end the session.

When Theme Is Already Set

Open with a self-contained research brief, then show the oversight packet, then let the user's doubts and direction judgments drive the meeting.

Minimum required file: `research/state.md`. Data loading after that: `research/guide.md`, `research/findings.md`, `research/story.md`, `research/principles.md`, `research/focus.md`, and latest previous meeting log when present, excluding the newly created current log. If an optional file is missing, note the absence in the oversight packet and continue from `state.md`.
    ▼ Navigate the tree: ls research/ to see top-level children; read guide.md/state.md/findings.md where relevant
    ▼ If project-root agenda.md exists, load it and record its contents in the meeting log before treating it as consumed. If all items are consumed or dismissed, delete agenda.md and commit that deletion together with the meeting update; if only some items are consumed or dismissed, remove only those items and leave the rest
    ▼ Present self-contained research brief: question, recent progress, current belief, main doubt, decision material
    ▼ Present oversight packet: current direction, guide links, verification-risk links, likely drift points
    ▼ Ask what the user wants to interrogate first: direction, verification honesty, explanation, or priority
    ▼ Reflect decisions, readiness debt, guide updates, and next focus

Self-contained research brief: Start every substantive meeting with this brief before asking the user to judge anything. It is a user-facing research explanation, not an internal status report.

{research question label in japanese}: {one sentence naming the scientific question in ordinary research language}
{where we are now label in japanese}: {3-5 sentences summarising the current scientific state: what was tried, what survived verification, what was downgraded or parked, and what this means for the project}
{current working claim label in japanese}: {one sentence stating the strongest claim the project is currently entitled to make, with strength qualifiers}
{main uncertainty label in japanese}: {one sentence naming the most important mathematical, physical, or literature uncertainty}
{today's judgment label in japanese}: {the decision the user can reasonably make now, plus the evidence or caveat needed to make it}

Write the brief for a human researcher who has not read the latest research/** changes. Define any project-specific term, abbreviation, named route, or file-derived label on first use if the decision depends on it. Avoid framework-internal terms in the brief (routing, cursor, ACCEPT, readiness debt, curator, critic, handoff, artifact) unless the user explicitly asks about process; if one is unavoidable, translate it first into its scientific meaning. Do not ask "is the research done?", "approve this", or any equivalent decision until the brief has given the user enough scientific context to answer. If the available files are too sparse to write the brief, say what is missing as part of the brief and make that absence the first supervision issue.

Oversight packet:

{theme label in japanese}: {from research/guide.md, research/story.md, or research/state.md}
{current focus label in japanese}: {research/focus.md Cursor + one-sentence context}
{human guide label in japanese}:
  - {path to guide.md if present} — {why this is the best entrypoint}
{verification-risk label in japanese}:
  - {path to findings/check/report/state item} — {short reason this deserves human suspicion or may need curator/critic follow-up}
{direction questions label in japanese}:
  - {question about drift, priority, story fit, missing evidence, or explanation need}

Do not replace oversight with a summary. A summary may orient the user, but the meeting's job is to surface the controls the user can exercise: asking why a claim is trusted, whether verification was real, whether the research question is still sensible, and what should be explained before continuing. Avoid dumping whole files into chat. Link the relevant guide.md, findings.md, checks/, _materials/analyses/*.md, story.md, or state.md section and quote only short excerpts needed for discussion.

Use guide.md as the first human entrypoint. Prefer linking guide.md when it exists. If no guide exists or it is stale, say so and use state.md / story.md / findings.md temporarily, then record a guide.md maintenance item for curator or update guide.md during the meeting if the needed guide content is now clear.

Self-contained defects are readiness debt. When the user finds that findings.md is not self-contained, verification is hard to follow, prose is polluted by workflow jargon, history is written as fact, prerequisites are skipped, or external literature should have been cited but is missing, do not ask the user to finish the QA pass. Record the defect under readiness debt, route it to research/focus.md, project-root agenda.md, or a relevant state.md entry for /auto, and preserve the user's high-level judgment in guide.md if useful.

Teach when the user asks. If the user needs to understand the research to supervise it, explain the minimum prerequisite, derivation idea, or verification chain in the conversation. If the explanation is likely to be needed again, update guide.md rather than bloating findings.md. If the explanation is actually a missing derivation or premise, route it to findings.md maintenance instead of leaving it only in guide.md.

Context-Route Invalidation

Meetings are also where the user can reject how the research tree is routing an element to future agents. The issue is not only the element itself. In this workflow, an element's effective role is assigned by context routing: where it is stored, which durable surface contains it, and which handoff prompt will later read that surface. A term, method, claim, proof, figure, check, dataset, summary, convention, confidence label, or plan can become "current understanding", "evidence", "proof support", "canonical terminology", "draft fact", or "next-cycle instruction" because it sits on a surface that future agents read in that role.

When user feedback rejects an element in the role by which the tree is routing it, do not treat the feedback as a local edit or a future preference. Seed a curator-owned context-route invalidation transaction. The meeting owns capturing the user-confirmed rejection and scope; curator owns repairing durable context routes. If repair requires computation, broad regeneration, or worker execution, curator records the open transaction and routes it to the next /auto focus instead of leaving the rejected route active.

Open this transaction when all three are true:

• Element: the user rejects a term, method, claim, proof, artifact, convention, summary, data product, or framing in the role it is currently serving
• Route: that element appears, or plausibly appears, on a durable surface or handoff path that future agents will read (findings.md, guide.md, state.md, checks/, _materials/analyses/*.md, conventions.md, principles.md, research/focus.md, active data/figure/script surfaces, or a linked archive)
• Risk: leaving it in that route would let a future agent receive it as current understanding, evidence, proof, canonical method/term, validation support, or operational instruction

First state your interpretation and confirm if the scope is ambiguous. Then write the decision under the localized decisions heading and dispatch curator with a transaction seed. In the meeting log, localize the labels; in the curator dispatch, keep the schema below stable so the curator can parse the transaction:

Rejected routed role:
- Element: {what is being rejected}
- Rejected role: {the role the tree currently gives it — evidence, current understanding, proof support, canonical term, method, etc.}
- Accepted replacement or unresolved: {replacement role/element if known, otherwise state unresolved}
- Scope: {tree path(s) and surfaces in scope}
- User-confirmed reason: {short reason in the user's terms}
- Suspected routes: {surfaces or artifact classes likely to carry the rejected role}
- Urgency: {why this must be closed now or why it can be routed to /auto}

Dispatch curator with that seed:

Agent(subagent_type="curator", prompt="""
## Task
Context-route invalidation transaction from /meeting. The user has rejected an element in the role by which durable research surfaces may be routing it. Capture the transaction, repair any durable context routes you are authorised to repair now, and record or route any regeneration/worker work needed before the rejected role can be considered closed.


## Transaction Seed
{the Rejected routed role block above}

## Meeting Context
{short meeting-log path and any file links already discussed}
""")

Do not ask curator to decide whether the user's rejection is scientifically correct. The meeting has already established the user-facing decision; curator's job is context-route mechanics and transaction closure. If the rejection is unresolved or the user is still deciding, do not dispatch curator yet — record it as a discussion item or agenda item instead.

When curator returns, append the curator summary and changed paths under the localized changes-applied heading, then commit the meeting log plus curator-touched files with the normal meeting: prefix. In /meeting, there is no close-session transaction; meeting is responsible for recording and committing curator's returned tree changes. If curator reports an open regeneration or worker task, record it in research/focus.md or the relevant backlog/agenda exactly as curator specifies, so the next /auto sees the transaction before ordinary research resumes.

Reflection Routing

Route meeting outcomes by what kind of thing was learned.

• Human oversight orientation, reading path, recurring doubts, what to inspect next → guide.md
• Project thesis, narrative success condition, or paper storyline → research/story.md
• Decomposition, route priority, approach choice, or active strategy → relevant plan.md or research/focus.md
• Verification doubt, self-containedness defect, missing source bridge, suspected AI overclaim, or unclear checks chain → project-root agenda.md, research/focus.md, or relevant state.md for curator/critic/research-planner follow-up
• User-confirmed wording or interpretation of already-supported fact-layer content → findings.md only when the underlying claim, claim strength, evidence, and derivation are already verified. New factual claims, stronger claim strength, new evidence, or new derivations go to /auto/curator/critic rather than being established by human agreement
• Background / working state changes → research/state.md
• Reusable research judgment principles → research/principles.md with a > [Meeting YYYY-MM-DD] origin marker, after the routing check below
• Notation, sign, normalization, symbol reservation, or convention bridge → conventions.md
• Framework-level file contract or agent workflow rule → record a project-root agenda.md item labelled /improve, or invoke /improve only if the user explicitly asks to handle it now

Manuscript freeze: Do not write to manuscript/, do not create authorization snapshots, and do not ask the user to approve findings.md as manuscript input. If the user starts making paper-promotion decisions, record them as discussion/agenda for the future write workflow unless they also imply immediate research-tree changes above.

Significance rewrite: When the discussion explicitly recontextualizes results and the user confirms the synthesis, rewrite affected guide.md, story.md, or findings.md according to the routing rules. Meetings produce understanding that won't propagate unless written, but unresolved factual questions must be routed back to /auto rather than recorded as established facts.

---

Deepening the Dialogue

The goal is not AI reporting and ending, but user control over research direction, verification trust, and understanding. Actively seek the user's judgment in the following situations.

Direction drift: Ask whether the current cursor, child decomposition, or next worker direction still serves the project. If the user redirects, reflect the decision in research/focus.md, story.md, or a relevant state/plan surface according to scope.

Verification suspicion: If a claim looks too convenient, lacks a derivation, relies on an unclear check chain, or cites only AI-produced prose, ask what the user wants challenged. Record the target, suspected failure mode, and desired follow-up as readiness debt.

Human understanding gap: If the user is trying to keep up, teach the missing concept or derivation path. Then decide whether the persistent artifact should be guide.md, findings.md, a concept note under concepts/{term}.md, or a source-reading task.

Ambiguous statements: State AI's interpretation explicitly and confirm. Specify exactly what changes to which files before reflecting.

---

Incremental Recording Principle

Users may leave at any natural stopping point. Post-processing that writes everything at the end risks not being executed. Record and reflect on the spot. Commit research-artifact changes immediately; for log-only discussion or decisions, commit at each important checkpoint and always before ending the meeting.

Timing	Action
Session start	Create meeting log file in .logs/ + update last_meeting
When an oversight packet is presented	Append linked guide/findings/check/story/state paths under the localized oversight-packet heading
When a topic arises	Append under the localized discussion-items heading in the meeting log. Log-only appends are not themselves listed under changes-applied
When verification doubt or readiness debt is identified	Append under the localized readiness-debt heading + route to focus/state/agenda as appropriate
When a decision is made	Append under the localized decisions heading + immediately reflect in relevant files. Before writing to research/principles.md, run the research-principle routing check below
When a routed role is rejected	Append the transaction seed under decisions + dispatch curator or record why it is deferred
When an explanation should persist	Update guide.md, concepts/{term}.md, or findings.md by routing identity. Record under the localized changes-applied heading
When a research artifact changes	Append under the localized changes-applied heading in the meeting log + git commit. A research artifact change means any non-log file change, or agenda.md consumption/deletion; ordinary meeting-log appends do not recursively require a changes-applied entry
Before ending or pausing after log-only progress	Commit the meeting log even if no research artifact changed

Git commits: Specify changed files individually with git add. Keep the fixed meeting: prefix, and write the summary of changes in japanese.

Research Principle Routing Check

research/principles.md is not a general bucket for important meeting decisions. Write there only when the decision states a reusable research judgment principle: a criterion that future agents should repeatedly apply when comparing routes, promoting claims, separating roles, or deciding what evidence prevents overclaiming.

Use the main Reflection Routing table above for all non-principle destinations. This check only decides whether a decision belongs in research/principles.md: write there only when it is a reusable research judgment criterion with active future consequences. If the decision is thesis/story, decomposition/strategy, source priority, established fact prose, human-facing explanation, notation/convention, or framework workflow, route it to the destination named above rather than duplicating it in principles.md.

When adding a principle, use # Research Principles as the heading and include scope, principle, reason, consequence, and origin. If an existing principles.md entry is really story, plan, source priority, notation, fact prose, guide prose, or framework workflow, move it when the move is mechanical; if moving it would change scientific meaning, record the concern in the meeting log and leave a concrete agenda item for curator/research-planner follow-up.