Seed a brain from a LARGE existing source by TRIAGING it, then calibrating the agent's judgment on small batches, then bulk-mining. Use when the owner says "mine my [source]", "mine this export", "calibrate the mining", "idea mining", "process my archive", or "seed my brain from this export" — pointing at a sizable export (notes-app dump, chat history, voice-note archive, bookmarks, podcast snips). Phase 0 TRIAGE: categorize the source into keep/skip bins, sample the skip-bins, get owner approval per bin, build the target list. Phase 1 CALIBRATE: small batches → present COMPACT numbered proposals (verbatim quote + the agent's call + one-line reason, no tables) → owner corrects → write every correction back into the rules (CONTENT_TAXONOMY / KEYWORD_GUIDE / INTELLECTUAL_LANDSCAPE) → draft the full Template only after the calls are approved → repeat until a batch is clean. Phase 2 SET LOOSE: process the remainder autonomously, spot-check, re-calibrate on drift. Implements "invest in structure and calibrate the
Onboard a human into THEIR own second brain — the guided interview that turns this blank template into their personalized system. Use when the user says "set this up", "let's set it up", "set up my second brain", "personalize", "personalise", "make this mine", "onboard me", "help me fill this in", "walk me through PERSONALIZE", or starts a fresh session wanting to begin. Drives the whole __FILL_FROM_USER__ fill-in via an interview. Resumable — pick up where you left off. NOT for ingesting content (use /ingest-brain-dump) — this is first-run setup.
Handles connections between related ideas. Options include creating folders, adding shared keywords, merging content, or rejecting false positives. Used when ingest-brain-dump identifies related content.
Weekly self-improvement of the HARNESS itself — not project QA. Reviews the last N days of this brain's Claude Code session traces for harness-level friction (where the owner corrected the agent, repeated permission prompts, skills that misfired or weren't used, rules/memories the agent ignored, weak sub-agent prompts), drafts a proposal of findings, and the owner reviews + applies it finding-by-finding (gated — nothing auto-applies). Uses the in-session Workflow tool to fan out over trace chunks; no external services, no API keys. Use when the owner says "/harness-review", "review the harness", "self-review", "what's the agent getting wrong", or accepts the optional offer at the end of /weekly-maintenance.
Full orchestrator for stream-of-consciousness input pasted or dictated into the Claude Code session. Pipeline: explore-second-brain (find related files) → semantic segmentation → verify-idea (dedupe check) → process-content (create Template A files) → validate_template.py → user approval → save. Use when user pastes unstructured text or dictates a voice note into chat and says "brain dump", "process this", "ingest this", "save this", "what should we do with this". One paragraph may contain 3 ideas; 5 paragraphs may be 1 idea — always semantic, never algorithmic chunking. NOT for phone inbox (use a phone-inbox ingest skill if configured). NOT for podcast snips (use a snip-processing skill if configured). NOT for bookmark exports (use a bookmarks-ingest skill if configured). For a LARGE existing source export (notes-app dump, chat history, voice-note archive), use /mine — it triages the source, then calibrates the agent's judgment on small batches before the bulk pass. Preserves the owner's exact language — no
Low-level mechanic that turns raw text into Template A/B files. Segments semantically (never algorithmic chunking), classifies each segment, creates files, runs validate_template.py. Does NOT sync from external sources — text must already be in context. Called by the ingestion skills (e.g. /ingest-example) as their file-creation stage; can also be invoked directly when user pastes content and says "make files from this", "turn this into Template A", "parse this into ideas". NOT for voice/phone inbox work (use an inbox-ingest skill), NOT for searching the brain (use explore-second-brain or semantic-search). If input has multiple distinct ideas, all are processed in one invocation.
Fast semantic search over Second Brain using local embeddings (BAAI/bge-large-en-v1.5, via `sb_embed.py`). Finds ideas by MEANING, not just keyword overlap. **Commands:** `search "query"` (top-k ranked matches, ~50ms cached), `verify "idea"` (duplicate check with DUPLICATE/OVERLAP/NOT_FOUND verdict), `similar path/to/file.md` (find files semantically close to an existing one), `stats` (index health). **Filters:** `--project "Project Name"`, `--category "Journal"`, `--top-k N`, `--json`. **Use semantic search for:** broad concept recall ("what do I have about coordination?"), rephrased-duplicate detection, unexpected-connection discovery, pre-ingestion dedupe. **Use grep instead when:** you know the exact term/phrase, doing project/category lookups by exact string, or confirming a specific filename. Grep is precise; semantic is recall-wide. Best practice: combine — semantic for broad recall, grep for precision matching. Invoked via "find ideas about X", "what do I have on X", "related to X", "similar to this i
Semantic duplicate detection for Second Brain ideas. Distills input to core concept, runs `sb_embed.py verify` (embedding-based similarity, ~50ms), reads top candidates, and returns one of four verdicts: **DUPLICATE** (>0.85 similarity — exact same idea, point to existing file, skip creation), **OVERLAP** (0.70–0.85 — related but distinct, consider merging or linking), **NOT FOUND** (<0.70 — safe to create new file), **UNCERTAIN** (ambiguous matches — surface them to human for judgment). Falls back to grep for keyword precision when semantic search is ambiguous. Core rule: SEMANTIC match, not keyword match. Two ideas are duplicates when they propose the same unique insight, regardless of wording — shared keywords with different proposals do NOT count as duplicates. Called by the ingestion skills (e.g. /process-content, /ingest-example) before file creation. Also invoke directly when user asks "is this captured?", "do I have this?", "check for duplicates", "have I thought about this before?".