recall

<Purpose> Run an interactive spaced repetition session: build a mixed queue of retrieval practice cards, inbox triage items, and a surprise cross-domain connection. For each card, show only the title first — forcing recall before revealing content (retrieval practice). Interleave domains to exploit the spacing and interleaving effects. Surface a non-obvious connection the user hasn't made yet. </Purpose> <Use_When> - User wants a review session ("what should I review?", "quiz me", "recall practice") - User wants to resurface notes they haven't seen in a while - User wants to triage their inbox - User wants to discover connections across domains - User asks "what do I remember about X?" - Periodic knowledge maintenance (daily, weekly reviews) </Use_When> <Do_Not_Use_When> - User wants to deeply process a specific note (use /process) - User wants vault structure analysis (use /vault-graph) - User wants to synthesize across a cluster (use /synthesize) - User is actively reading or adding a new source note </Do_Not_Use_When> <Execution_Policy> - INTERACTIVE — never skip ahead. Each card requires the user to respond before the answer is shown. The friction IS the learning. - Never show note content before the user attempts recall - Prefer notes with updated_date older than 14 days (spacing effect) - MUST interleave domains — draw from at least 3 different topic folders - Use MCP tools (search_notes, get_frontmatter) when available; fall back to Grep/Glob - Session size: default 5 retrieval cards, 2 inbox items, 1 surprise connection (adjust to user's argument if provided) - After each reveal, offer to update the note if it's stale </Execution_Policy> <Steps> ## Stage 1: BUILD THE QUEUE ### 1a. Retrieval Practice Cards (default 3–5) Candidate selection using MCP: ``` search_notes(query="processing_status: processed OR processing_status: evergreen", limit=50) search_notes(query="type: term OR type: note", limit=50) ``` Or fall back to Grep: ``` Grep(pattern="processing_status: (processed|evergreen)", path="notes/", glob="*.md") Grep(pattern="^type: (term|note)$", path="notes/", glob="*.md") ``` Filter and rank candidates: 1. Prefer notes with `updated_date` older than 14 days — compute from today (2026-03-20) 2. Prefer notes with the `[ ](#anki-card)` anchor (marked for spaced repetition) 3. Prefer notes with `processing_status: processed` over `evergreen` (evergreen notes are maintained; processed ones need re-testing) 4. **Enforce domain interleaving**: collect the topic folder for each candidate (`notes/ml/`, `notes/psychology/`, `notes/startup/`, etc.) and ensure the final selection spans at least 3 different folders 5. If fewer than 3 domains are available, accept 2 minimum Read the frontmatter to confirm `updated_date` and `type`: ``` get_frontmatter(path="notes/PATH/filename.md") ``` ### 1b. Inbox Triage Items (1–2) Find the oldest unprocessed source notes: ``` search_notes(query="processing_status: inbox", limit=20) ``` Or: ``` Grep(pattern="processing_status: inbox", path="notes/", glob="*.md") ``` Filter to types: `paper`, `post`, `book`, `lecture`, `course`. Sort by `created_date` ascending — oldest first. Pick 1–2. ### 1c. Surprise Connection (1) Goal: find two notes from DIFFERENT domain folders that share a concept keyword but have NO wikilink between them. Algorithm: 1. Pick a retrieval card already in the queue (it has topic keywords in its body) 2. Extract 2–3 key concept words from that note's title or content 3. Search a DIFFERENT domain folder for notes containing those keywords: ``` Grep(pattern="KEYWORD", path="notes/OTHER_DOMAIN/", glob="*.md") ``` 4. Check that the two notes do NOT link to each other: ``` Grep(pattern="\\[\\[.*TITLE.*\\]\\]", path="notes/SOURCE_NOTE.md") ``` 5. If no match, try a second keyword or a second candidate note 6. Present both notes with the shared concept as the "bridge" Non-obvious pairings to prioritize (cross-domain > within-domain): - ml/ ↔ psychology/ (learning algorithms ↔ cognitive science) - startup/ ↔ design/ (product strategy ↔ UX) - finance/ ↔ ml/ (optimization ↔ market dynamics) - psychology/ ↔ startup/ (behavioral economics ↔ business) - computer science/ ↔ logic/ (formal systems ↔ reasoning) ## Stage 2: PRESENT QUEUE OVERVIEW Before starting, show the session plan: ``` Review session — [N] cards queued Retrieval practice ([count]): 1. [Note title] — [domain] 2. [Note title] — [domain] ... Inbox triage ([count]): • [Note title] ([type], [age] days old) ... Surprise connection: [teaser — e.g., "a bridge between ML and psychology"] Ready? I'll show you one card at a time. Type anything to start, or "skip [N]" to skip a card. ``` ## Stage 3: RUN THE SESSION ### For each retrieval practice card: **Turn 1 — Prompt recall:** ``` ───────────────────────────────────── Card [N/total] · [domain folder] [[ (Type) Note Title ]] What do you remember about this concept? (Type your answer, or "skip" to reveal) ───────────────────────────────────── ``` Wait for user response. **Turn 2 — Reveal:** Read the full note content: ``` read_note(path="notes/PATH/filename.md") ``` Or: `Read(file_path="/absolute/path/to/note.md")` Show the note content (truncate at 400 words if very long — show key sections). Then ask: ``` How did you do? Is this note still accurate? [u] Update note [n] Next card [e] Evergreen (promote status) ``` If user wants to update: help them edit inline, then update `updated_date` in frontmatter using `update_frontmatter`. If user types "e" or "evergreen": update `processing_status` to `evergreen`. ### For each inbox triage item: ``` ───────────────────────────────────── Inbox triage · [type] · [age] days old [[ (Type) Note Title ]] ``` Read the note, show the first 5–7 bullets (or Abstract section for papers). Then ask: ``` Worth processing deeply, or archive? [p] Process (I'll run /process next) [a] Archive [s] Skip for now ``` - `p` → note it as a recommendation; optionally update `processing_status: processing` - `a` → update `processing_status: archived` - `s` → leave unchanged ### For the surprise connection: ``` ───────────────────────────────────── Surprise connection These two notes share the concept "[KEYWORD]" but don't link to each other: [[ (Type) Note A ]] (domain: X) [[ (Type) Note B ]] (domain: Y) [Brief excerpt from each showing the shared concept] Do you see a meaningful connection? What would the link say? ───────────────────────────────────── ``` Wait for user response. If they see a connection: - Help them decide which note gets the wikilink (or both) - Offer to add the link: `[[ (Type) Note B ]]` into Note A's Related links section - Update `updated_date` on both notes ## Stage 4: SESSION SUMMARY ``` ───────────────────────────────────── Session complete Reviewed: [N] cards Updated: [N] notes Promoted to evergreen: [list] Archived: [list] Queued for /process: [list] New connections made: [count] Oldest unreviewed term: [title] ([N] days) ───────────────────────────────────── ``` Optionally suggest: "Run /process on [oldest inbox item] next." </Steps> <Examples> <Good> User: "review session" 1. Build queue: 4 term notes (ml/, psychology/, startup/, finance/), 2 inbox papers, 1 surprise 2. Show overview → user starts 3. Card 1: "[[ (Term) Attention Mechanism ]]" — user recalls, sees note, updates a stale bullet 4. Card 2: "[[ (Term) Loss Aversion ]]" — user blanks, reads note, promotes to evergreen 5. Inbox: "(Paper) Chinchilla Scaling Laws" — 60 days old → user says archive 6. Surprise: "(Term) Gradient Descent" ↔ "(Term) Operant Conditioning" — shared keyword "reward signal" → user says "oh, both use incremental feedback to converge on a target behavior" → adds link 7. Summary: 6 reviewed, 2 updated, 1 evergreen, 1 archived, 1 connection made </Good> <Good> User: "quiz me on 3 cards" → Session with 3 retrieval cards (not 5), 1 inbox item, 1 surprise connection </Good> <Bad> Showing note content immediately without prompting recall first. → This destroys the retrieval practice effect. ALWAYS show title first, wait for response. </Bad> <Bad> Picking 4 cards all from notes/ml/. → Violates interleaving. Domains must be mixed. If ml/ only has enough candidates, pull from any other folder before repeating a domain. </Bad> </Examples> <Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions> - **Not enough processed notes** (<3): Inform user, offer to run /process first on top inbox items - **All notes recently reviewed** (updated within 7 days): Report "vault is fresh — nothing due for spacing" - **No inbox items**: Skip inbox triage stage, replace with an extra retrieval card - **Surprise connection not found after 3 attempts**: Skip it, note "no unlinked cross-domain pairs found today" - **User types "stop" or "quit"**: End session immediately, show partial summary - **MCP unavailable**: Fall back to Grep/Glob for all searches; behavior is identical </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions> $ARGUMENTS