compound

name	Compound
description	Reflect on the cycle and capture high-quality lessons for future sessions
phase	compound

Compound Skill

Overview

Extract and store lessons learned during the cycle, and update project documentation. This is what makes the system compound -- each session leaves the next one better equipped.

CRITICAL: Store all lessons via ca learn -- NOT via MEMORY.md, NOT via markdown files. Lessons go to .claude/lessons/index.jsonl through the CLI. MEMORY.md is a different system and MUST NOT be used for compounding.

Methodology

1. Review what happened during this cycle (git diff, test results, plan context)
2. Detect spec drift: resolve the spec file -- read the Spec: pointer in the epic stub (bd show <epic>) or the Spec: bead note, and open that docs/specs/ file as the source of truth. If no spec-file pointer exists (legacy epic), fall back to reading the spec from the epic description. Compare the final implementation against the spec file's ## EARS Requirements. Note any divergences -- what changed, why, was it justified. If drift reveals a spec was wrong or incomplete, flag that for lesson extraction. If reconciliation updates the spec, append an entry to the spec file's ## Amendments section (phase = compound) describing what changed and why.
3. Detect verification drift: compare the work and review evidence against the spec file's ## Verification Contract. If review had to escalate the contract, or if planned evidence was too weak/too strong, capture that as a workflow-quality lesson.
4. Spawn the analysis pipeline in an AgentTeam (TeamCreate + Task with team_name):
   • Role skills: .claude/skills/compound/agents/{context-analyzer,lesson-extractor,pattern-matcher,solution-writer,compounding}/SKILL.md
   • For large diffs, deploy MULTIPLE context-analyzers and lesson-extractors
   • Pipeline: context-analyzers -> lesson-extractors -> pattern-matcher + solution-writer -> compounding
   • Agents coordinate via SendMessage throughout the pipeline
5. Agents pass results through the pipeline via SendMessage. The lead coordinates: context-analyzer and lesson-extractor feed pattern-matcher and solution-writer, which feed compounding.
6. Apply quality filters: novelty check (>0.98 cosine similarity = skip), specificity check
7. Classify each item by type: lesson, solution, pattern, or preference
8. Classify severity: high (data loss/security/contradictions), medium (workflow/patterns), low (style/optimizations)
9. Use AskUserQuestion to confirm high-severity items with the user before storing; medium/low items are auto-stored
10. Store via ca learn with supersedes/related links where applicable. At minimum, capture 1 lesson per significant decision made during this cycle
11. Lint graduation: Spawn the lint-classifier subagent (.claude/agents/compound/lint-classifier.md). Pass it the list of newly captured insights from step 10 via SendMessage (each with id, insight text, and severity). The subagent classifies each as LINTABLE, PARTIAL, or NOT_LINTABLE. For LINTABLE + HIGH confidence items, it detects the project's linter and creates beads tasks under a "Linting Improvement" epic. All insights remain stored as lessons regardless of classification.
12. Delegate to the compounding subagent to run synthesis: cluster accumulated lessons by similarity and write CCT patterns to .claude/lessons/cct-patterns.jsonl
13. Update outdated docs and deprecate superseded ADRs (set status to deprecated)

Docs Integration

• doc-gardener checks if docs/ content is outdated after the cycle
• Check docs/decisions/ for ADRs contradicted by the work done
• Set ADR status to deprecated if a decision was reversed, referencing the new ADR

Literature

• Consult docs/compound/research/learning-systems/ for knowledge compounding theory, spaced repetition, and lesson extraction methodology
• Run ca knowledge "knowledge compounding" for indexed knowledge on learning systems
• Run ca search "compound" for lessons from past compounding cycles

Common Pitfalls

• Not spawning the analysis team (analyzing solo misses cross-cutting patterns)
• Capturing without checking for duplicates via ca search
• Skipping supersedes/related linking when an item updates prior knowledge
• Not checking if docs or ADRs need updating after the cycle
• Requiring user confirmation for every item (only high-severity needs it)
• Not classifying items by type (lesson/solution/pattern/preference)
• Capturing vague lessons ("be careful with X") -- be specific and concrete
• Not capturing when the Verification Contract was too weak or over-specified for the actual work

Quality Criteria

• Analysis team was spawned and agents coordinated via pipeline
• Quality filters applied (novelty + specificity)
• Duplicates checked via ca search before capture
• Items classified by type (lesson/solution/pattern/preference)
• Supersedes/related links set where applicable
• Outdated docs and ADRs were updated or deprecated
• User confirmed high-severity items
• Beads checked for related issues (bd)
• Each item gives clear, concrete guidance for future sessions
• Spec drift analyzed and captured
• Verification drift analyzed and captured when the contract needed adjustment

FINAL GATE -- EPIC CLOSURE

Before closing the epic:

• Run ca verify-gates <epic-id> -- must return PASS for both gates
• Run {{QUALITY_GATE_TEST}} and {{QUALITY_GATE_LINT}} -- must pass
• Read the ## Verification Contract from the spec file (resolve via the Spec: pointer; legacy fallback to the epic description) and run every required evidence item that remains applicable. If build is required, run {{QUALITY_GATE_BUILD}} If verify-gates fails, the missing phase was SKIPPED. Go back and complete it. CRITICAL: 3/5 phases is NOT success. All 5 phases are required.