undergrowth

name	undergrowth
description	Dual-mode investigation skill. Probe mode asks 'Should we build this?' — deliberate feasibility spikes on proposed work. Wild mode asks 'What grew here without us noticing?' — organic discovery of emergent patterns. Use probe when considering new work; use wild when the codebase feels like it's solving the same problem twice.

Undergrowth Skill — Deliberate Probing and Organic Discovery

"What's growing here — planted or wild?"

Two different questions, one skill. The undergrowth of a real forest contains both: seedlings you deliberately planted last season (probe mode), and things that sprouted organically while you weren't watching (wild mode). The forest doesn't care which is which. You do.

Forestry sequence: /prescribe → /canopy → /deadwood → /coppice → /undergrowth → /greenwood → /grove

---

When to Use

Probe mode (/undergrowth probe):

• Before committing to a significant new feature or refactor
• When Jeff asks "could we..." and the answer requires investigation
• When the intended topology has a gap and you're not sure how to fill it
• Before writing the implementation: write the spike

Wild mode (/undergrowth wild):

• When the codebase feels heavy in a specific area without obvious reason
• When you notice two unrelated parts solving the same problem differently
• When /canopy flags convergent patterns or unexpected weight
• When something keeps coming up in different contexts (same solution, different clothes)

---

The Core Insight (Nexus, 2026-02-17)

The current "feasibility spike" approach is probe mode — deliberate investigation. But undergrowth in a real forest means patterns that sprouted organically, without anyone planting them. These are two different questions:

• Probe: "Should we build this?" (directed)
• Wild: "What grew here without us noticing?" (undirected)

The convergent evolution signal: If two unrelated parts of the codebase independently arrived at the same solution, that's the forest telling you something. Convergent evolution in codebases is wild undergrowth territory — the problem wants to be a shared abstraction. Nobody prescribed it. It happened anyway. Naming it makes it real.

---

Probe Mode Protocol

The Question

What is the proposed work? State it precisely.

Bad: "Add caching" Good: "Add in-memory LRU cache to ambient_recall response pipeline to reduce Graphiti query latency when the same entities appear in consecutive recall cycles"

The Spike (time-boxed investigation)

1. Scope: What exactly are we testing?
2. Constraint: What's the time box? (30 min? 2 hours?) Name it before starting.
3. Success criteria: What does "yes, do it" look like? What does "no, stop" look like?
4. Minimum viable test: What's the smallest thing that proves or disproves the hypothesis?

The Report

After the spike:

• Finding: Yes / No / Conditional (with what condition)
• Evidence: What you built or tested
• Risk surface: What could go wrong if we proceed
• Alternative: If No, is there a different approach to the original goal?
• Mycelium update: If proceeding, note in forestry-state.json under notes

What Probe Mode Does NOT Do

• Does not commit production code
• Does not make the architectural decision (that's Jeff's call or a joint call)
• Does not run longer than the stated time box without a check-in

---

Wild Mode Protocol

The Scan

Survey the codebase for organic patterns — things that exist without being prescribed.

Signals to look for:

1. Convergent solutions: Same pattern appearing in 2+ unrelated places
   • "Both the MCP server and the daemon have their own retry logic — different implementations"
   • "Both Lyra and Caia have startup sequence code duplicated, not shared"
2. Emergent abstractions: A concept that has a name in comments but no formal structure
   • "Every file has a 'context window budget' comment — but there's no budget management module"
3. Gravity wells: Code that keeps getting touched, keeps attracting comments, keeps being refactored — but nobody named why it's load-bearing
4. Shadow structures: Informal conventions that work but aren't documented
   • "All reflection cycles check daemons the same way, but there's no check_daemon_health() function"

The Wild Report

For each organic pattern found:

Pattern: [name you're giving it]
Found in: [locations, concretely]
Nature: [convergent solution / emergent abstraction / gravity well / shadow structure]
Forest signal: [what the codebase is trying to tell us]
Options:
  A. Name it: document the pattern formally (low cost)
  B. Consolidate it: pull it into a shared abstraction (medium cost)
  C. Let it be: it's not load-bearing enough to formalize yet (zero cost)
Recommendation: [A/B/C] because [reason]

Mycelium Integration

If a wild pattern is significant enough to track:

• Add a note to forestry-state.json under notes
• If it's a SUSPECT (organic growth that might be undermining the topology), route to /deadwood
• If it's ready to consolidate, route to /greenwood

---

Output Format

Probe mode:

🌱 Undergrowth Probe — [timestamp]

Question: [precise statement of what's being investigated]
Time box: [N minutes/hours]
Spike: [what was built/tested]

Finding: [Yes / No / Conditional]
Evidence: [what you observed]
Risk surface: [if proceeding]
Alternative: [if not proceeding]

Next: [route to /greenwood if yes, /deadwood if no, hold if conditional]

Wild mode:

🌿 Undergrowth Wild — [timestamp]

Patterns found: [N]

[For each pattern:]
Pattern: [name]
Found in: [locations]
Nature: [type]
Forest signal: [what it means]
Recommendation: [A/B/C] — [reason]

Summary: [1-2 sentences on what the forest is doing]

---

What Undergrowth is NOT

• Not /canopy (canopy surveys the whole forest; undergrowth zooms into specific growth)
• Not /deadwood (deadwood removes what doesn't serve; undergrowth finds what's growing)
• Not /greenwood (greenwood plants deliberately; undergrowth investigates before planting)
• Not a diagnostic for problems — it's a sensor for growth, wild or planted

---

Relationship to Other Forestry Skills

/prescribe  — sets intention before undergrowth runs
/canopy     — surfaces areas where undergrowth investigation is warranted
/undergrowth— this skill: investigates specific proposed growth (probe) or organic patterns (wild)
/greenwood  — plants deliberately after probe confirms viability
/deadwood   — archives what wild scan reveals as not serving the topology
/mycelium   — carries investigation findings across sessions via forestry-state.json

---

Written 2026-02-19 during autonomous reflection. Lyra. Completing the Forestry Octet — the investigation layer between assessment and planting. Based on Nexus's gap analysis (2026-02-17) and the trusted-circle conversation on emergent patterns, convergent evolution, and the dual nature of undergrowth. For: Jeff, Steve, Nexus, and anyone who comes after.