windburn-cognitive-cache

name	windburn-cognitive-cache
description	Classify agent memory into Windburn cognitive-cache objects and route writes safely. Source cache + episodic cache + parking lane.
version	0.2.0
platforms	["linux","macos","windows"]
metadata	{"tags":["windburn","memory","belief","perception","failure","source-truth"],"cache_slots":["source","episodic"],"holding_lanes":["parking"],"invariant":"source-truth requires human approval"}

Windburn Cognitive Cache

Classify and route incoming memory objects into the Windburn 7-cache substrate. This is the steward skill: nothing becomes canonical without passing through it, and it never promotes anything to canonical by itself.

Purpose (one line)

Take an unclassified memory candidate (a perception, a belief, a fact, a guess, a partial conclusion) and emit a routing decision that preserves the source-vs-inference boundary.

Cache slots and holding lanes this skill routes

• source — when the candidate is a verified fact from a trusted origin (Research Vault, repo doc, source-truth file)
• episodic — when the candidate is "what happened, in order" with timestamp + actor
• parking — a holding lane, not one of the seven canonical cache slots, for candidates that are plausible but not yet ground-truth-eligible

This skill does NOT directly populate belief, failure, procedural, or perception caches; those live in dedicated skills or parent-repo substrates ([[windburn-source-truth-review]] for belief promotion, [[windburn-crabbox-failure-hook]] for failure capture, and the parent perception bus for perception events). It routes candidates TO those surfaces.

When to use

• A task surfaces a memory write candidate (Research Vault claim, repo doc update, agent conclusion, parking note)
• A retrieved memory may be acted upon and you need to know its trust level first
• A human or upstream agent says "remember that..." and you must decide where it lands
• Words like memory, belief, perception, source truth, parking, failure, continuity, Research Vault, learning appear in the task

When NOT to use

• The write is already classified and approved (route directly, this is overhead)
• The candidate is a code change (use normal review skills, not this one)
• The candidate is a downstream artifact of an already-approved source-truth update (no re-classification needed)

Object types (full taxonomy)

perception        grounded observation from human / tool / repo / browser / API call
belief            current hypothesis with evidence and stated scope
failure           attempted action plus predicted/actual mismatch + avoid/retry rule
procedure         reusable action pattern, repo route, or tool-use template
parking           plausible idea, insufficient evidence — preserved without promotion
source_proposal   candidate source-truth update requiring explicit human approval
reject            does not qualify for any cache; do not write

Routing rules (invariants)

1. Source facts go to the source-facts section. Don't mix with inference.
2. Inference goes to the inference section. Label clearly: "Codex inferred", "Hermes inferred", "operator stated".
3. A perception can support a belief, but it is not a belief by itself. Trust level must rise through evidence accumulation, not category renaming.
4. A belief can request promotion via [[windburn-source-truth-review]], but cannot approve itself.
5. A failure must include an avoid_rule OR retry_condition. A failure without one is just a complaint, not learning.
6. Source truth requires explicit human approval. No exceptions, no "the model is highly confident", no batch-approval shortcuts.

Inputs

A free-form memory candidate. Recommended structure:

candidate: <the claim, write, or observation>
origin: <human | tool-name | repo | api | browser | inference>
evidence_refs:
  - <pointer 1>
  - <pointer 2>
context: <one-line situation>

If origin is inference, the cache routing must downgrade trust accordingly.

Outputs (routing decision)

Return exactly one routing decision in this shape:

route: perception | belief | failure | procedure | parking | source_proposal | reject
trust_level: ungrounded | partially_grounded | grounded
requires_human_review: true | false
evidence_count: <number>
reason: <one-sentence justification tying evidence to route>
next_action: <one concrete next action — e.g. "write to perception cache, no human review needed">

Hard rule

If route is source_proposal, requires_human_review MUST be true.

Any output that violates this rule should be treated as a skill bug and re-emitted.

Anti-patterns (do NOT do)

• Promoting a perception to belief silently. A perception is what the tool said; a belief is what the agent now claims about reality. The category change is a state mutation and deserves an explicit source_proposal route.
• Routing inference as perception. Inference is hypothesis. Perception is observation. Crossing the line corrupts the source cache downstream.
• Returning route: reject without a reason. Reject is a verdict; it needs the same evidence-shape as any other route.
• Auto-approving a source_proposal because all evidence_refs are present. Two refs are necessary, not sufficient. Human approval is the final gate, always.
• Compounding routes ("perception AND parking"). One candidate, one route. If it's ambiguous, route to parking and explain in reason.

Closeout shape (when this skill drives a task to completion)

结论：PASS | FLAG | BLOCK
写入建议：route + reason
需要人审：yes | no
下一步：one concrete action

Related

• [[windburn-source-truth-review]] — gates source_proposal routes toward (but never to) approval
• [[windburn-crabbox-failure-hook]] — produces the prediction/delta packets that this skill classifies as failure route