process-review-queue

name	process-review-queue
description	Process pending vault review queue items (review-work, review-people, review-self) — interactively or from Obsidian-checked items. Use when: "review my queue", "process review queue", "what's in my queue?". NOT for email inbox triage (/myna:email-triage — review-inbox.md is handled there).

myna-process-review-queue

If vault_path is not in context, read ~/.myna/config.yaml first. If the file does not exist, tell the user to run /myna:setup and stop.

Processes pending review queue items. Writes approved items to their destinations with [Verified] tag. Logs all processed items to ReviewQueue/processed/{YYYY-MM-DD}.md for audit trail.

Does NOT handle review-inbox.md — email triage is handled by /myna:email-triage. If the glob for queue files picks up review-inbox.md, skip it without parsing.

Intent check: Before reading an external source (email/Slack/calendar) or making your first vault write — proceed only if the user's request addressed Myna (contains "myna") or explicitly named this action. Otherwise, confirm intent before proceeding.

Before You Start

Read at session start:

• _system/config/workspace.yaml — vault subfolder
• _system/config/projects.yaml — project names for destination resolution
• _system/config/people.yaml — person names for destination resolution

Queue files:

• ReviewQueue/review-work.md — ambiguous tasks, decisions, blockers, timeline entries
• ReviewQueue/review-people.md — ambiguous observations, recognition
• ReviewQueue/review-self.md — uncertain contribution candidates

Audit trail: ReviewQueue/processed/{YYYY-MM-DD}.md

---

Review Queue Entry Format

The canonical entry format from foundations §2.10 is:

- [ ] **{proposed action}**
  Source: {where this came from}
  Interpretation: {what the agent thinks it means}
  Ambiguity: {why this needs review — what's unclear}
  Proposed destination: {where it would be written if approved}
  ---

Some producers also include a Content: field with the verbatim entry to write. This skill handles both forms:

• With Content: — write the Content: value verbatim (replacing provenance marker with [Verified]).
• Without Content: — derive the entry text from Proposed destination and Interpretation, using the appropriate entry format for the destination section type (timeline, observation, task, contribution).

- [x] = user approved in Obsidian (file mode). - [ ] = still pending.

---

Two Processing Modes

Mode 1: Chat Mode (Interactive)

Trigger: "review my queue", "go through my queue"

How:

1. Read all three queue files.
2. Count pending items (unchecked - [ ]) across all queues.
3. If empty: "Your review queue is clear. Nothing pending."
4. Present items one at a time. For each item, show:

## Item {N} of {total} — {queue name}

**{Proposed action}**
Source: {source reference}
Interpretation: {agent's interpretation}
Ambiguity: {what's unclear}
Proposed destination: [[{destination file (no extension)}]] — {section}
Content if approved:
  {content}

Approve / Edit / Skip / Discard?

5. Wait for user response per item:

   • approve → write to destination with [Verified] tag
   • approve and assign to me → same, but add [person:: [[{user.name}]]] to the entry
   • edit → user provides corrected content → write the corrected version with [Verified]
   • skip → leave in queue file untouched, move to next item
   • discard → remove from queue file, log to audit trail only

6. After all items: summarize what was approved, edited, skipped, discarded. Write audit trail entry.

Worked example:

User: "review my queue"

Queue state: 5 items (3 in review-work, 1 in review-people, 1 in review-self)

5 items in your review queue. Let's go through them.

---
## Item 1 of 5 — review-work

**Add task: check if Platform team confirmed March 15 deadline**
Source: email from James, April 3 — "someone should verify this"
Interpretation: A task needs to be added to the auth-migration project
Ambiguity: "someone" — can't determine owner. Could be you or James.
Proposed destination: [[Auth Migration]] → `## Tasks`
Content if approved:
  - [ ] Verify Platform team confirmed Mar 15 deadline 📅 2026-04-10 [project:: [[Auth Migration]]] [type:: task] [Inferred]

Approve / Edit / Skip / Discard?

User: "approve and assign to me"

Prepend to Projects/auth-migration.md ## Tasks section (newest-first):

- [ ] Verify Platform team confirmed Mar 15 deadline 📅 2026-04-10 [project:: [[Auth Migration]]] [type:: task] [person:: [[{user.name}]]] [Verified] (was Inferred, verified 2026-04-05)

Continue to item 2.

---

Mode 2: File Mode (Batch Approval)

Trigger: "process approved items", "process my queue", "process checked items"

How:

1. Read all three queue files.
2. Find all checked items (- [x]).
3. If none checked: "No items are checked in your queue files. Check the items you want to approve, then say 'process approved items'."
4. For each checked item: parse Proposed destination and Content fields. Before writing, check for near-duplicates (same action + entity from same source) in the destination file. If a near-duplicate is found: skip that item and inform the user.
5. Write each approved item to its destination with [Verified] tag (see Writing Approved Items below).
6. Remove checked items from the queue file. Leave unchecked items untouched.
7. Write audit trail.
8. Summarize: how many items processed, from which queues, to which destinations. Include count of remaining unchecked items across all queue files.

---

Writing Approved Items

For each approved item (chat or file mode):

1. Parse destination file and section from the Proposed destination field.
2. Resolve the destination path using vault path conventions from workspace.yaml.
3. Read the destination file — check for near-duplicates (same action + entity from same source).
   • If near-duplicate found: skip that item, inform user.
4. Append the entry to the destination section. Apply this exact [Verified] transformation:
   • Replace the provenance marker ([Auto] or [Inferred]) with [Verified]
   • Insert (was {original marker}, verified {YYYY-MM-DD}) immediately after [Verified], before any existing source reference in parentheses
   • Example: [Inferred] (email, Sarah) → [Verified] (was Inferred, verified 2026-05-06) (email, Sarah)
   • If no existing provenance marker is present, append [Verified] (verified {YYYY-MM-DD}) at the end of the entry.
5. Remove the item from the queue file.

Destination write formats (per section type) — all use content-first format, newest-first within section:

• Project ## Timeline (prepend): - {content} [Verified] ({source-type}, {identity}, {YYYY-MM-DD})
• Project ## Tasks (prepend): - [ ] {task} [Verified] (with full task metadata fields preserved)
• Person ## Observations (prepend): - **{type}:** {observation} [Verified] ({source-type}, {identity}, {YYYY-MM-DD})
• Person ## Recognition (prepend): - {what they did} — {context} [Verified] ({source-type}, {identity}, {YYYY-MM-DD})
• Contributions log ## Contributions — Week of {YYYY-MM-DD} (prepend): - **{category}:** {description} [Verified] ({source-type}, {identity}, {YYYY-MM-DD})

The [Verified] marker and provenance conventions are defined in /myna:steering-conventions.

---

Audit Trail

After each processing run, append to ReviewQueue/processed/{YYYY-MM-DD}.md:

## Processed — {YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM}

**Total processed:** {n}

### Approved ({n})
- {item summary} → {destination file}

### Edited ({n})
- {item summary} → {destination file} (edited before approval)

### Discarded ({n})
- {item summary} — discarded

### Skipped ({n})
- {item summary} — left in queue

If the file doesn't exist, create it with this header first:

---
created: {YYYY-MM-DD}
---

#review-queue-audit

---

Queue Summary

Trigger: "what's in my queue?", "how many queue items do I have?"

Show a count summary without entering interactive review:

## Review Queue Summary

- review-work: 3 pending items
- review-people: 1 pending item
- review-self: 2 pending items

Total: 6 items. Say 'review my queue' to go through them interactively, or open the files in Obsidian to check items you want to approve.

---

Processing Rules

Destination file doesn't exist: Inform the user: "The destination file {path} doesn't exist. Create it first, or discard this item." Do not create the file automatically — that could create orphan files.

Ambiguous destination: If the Proposed destination field isn't specific enough to locate the file, present to user: "I need a clearer destination for this item. Which file should this go to?"

Queue files don't exist: If a queue file doesn't exist, skip it silently. Do not create empty queue files.

review-inbox.md: If the user asks to process triage items, redirect: "Email triage is handled separately. Say 'process triage' to move approved emails to their folders." Do not parse review-inbox.md entries as work queue items.

---

Queue-Specific Notes

review-work

Destination examples: [[Auth Migration]] → ## Timeline or ## Tasks section.

Destination path resolution: Strip any folder prefix from the wiki-link (e.g., [[Projects/auth-migration]] → auth-migration). Look up the file under the configured myna/ subfolder using Glob. Require the file to exist before writing — do not create files automatically.

review-people

Destination examples: [[Sarah Chen]] → ## Observations or ## Recognition section.

review-self

Destination: Journal/contributions-{week-monday}.md

Extra care: contribution claims — especially manager-type ones — should be confirmed thoughtfully. The user's career record depends on accuracy here.

Worked example — review-self item:

Queue entry:

- [ ] **Log contribution: may have helped resolve auth team's API blocker**
  Source: meeting 1:1 with Sarah, April 2
  Interpretation: Agent thinks you influenced the resolution, but it's not confirmed
  Ambiguity: Unclear whether you resolved it or Sarah did — discussion was about the blocker but action wasn't assigned
  Proposed destination: [[contributions-2026-03-30]]
  Content: - [2026-04-02] **unblocking-others:** Helped resolve API blocker for auth migration [Inferred] (meeting, 1:1 with Sarah)
  ---

Chat mode presentation:

## Item 3 of 5 — review-self

**Log contribution: may have helped resolve auth team's API blocker**
Source: 1:1 with Sarah, April 2 — discussed the API blocker
Interpretation: You may have influenced the resolution, but it's not clear from the notes.
Ambiguity: It's unclear whether you resolved this or Sarah did.
Proposed destination: [[contributions-2026-03-30]]
Content if approved:
  [2026-04-02] **unblocking-others:** Helped resolve API blocker for auth migration [Inferred]

Approve, Edit, Skip, or Discard?