| name | Remember |
| description | Memory hygiene workflow to classify, deduplicate, and promote durable knowledge across local memory layers. |
| requires | {"bins":[],"env":[]} |
Remember
Review memory-like artifacts and propose what should be kept, promoted, merged,
or removed. This keeps guidance accurate as the project evolves.
Use when
- Memory instructions are drifting or conflicting.
- Team wants to clean stale guidance from old sessions.
- You need to promote stable patterns into durable docs.
Do not use when
- There is no meaningful memory/context to review.
- User only needs a one-off answer (no memory maintenance).
- You are asked to auto-edit memory layers without confirmation.
Input contract
review_scope (optional): workspace_docs, session_logs, both (default both).
apply_changes (optional): default false (proposal mode first).
priority (optional): conflicts, duplicates, promotions, all (default all).
target_files (optional): explicit files to inspect first.
Parsing rules (priority order)
- Use explicit structured args when provided.
- Else infer from user phrasing:
- "clean memory", "dedupe instructions" ->
priority=duplicates,conflicts
- "promote stable conventions" ->
priority=promotions
- "just review, don't edit" ->
apply_changes=false
- Defaults:
review_scope=both
apply_changes=false
priority=all
Canonical workflow
- Collect sources
- Workspace memory docs (for example:
IDENTITY.md, SOUL.md, MEMORY.md,
USER.md, AGENTS.md) and session evidence when available.
- Classify entries
- durable convention, temporary note, duplicate, outdated, conflicting, ambiguous.
- Generate proposals
- promotions (move to durable location), cleanup (remove/merge duplicates),
conflict resolution (which version wins + rationale).
- Present grouped report
Promotions, Cleanup, Conflicts, Ambiguous, No action.
- Apply only with approval
- If
apply_changes=true, execute approved changes and re-validate consistency.
Guardrails
- Default to proposal mode; do not mutate without explicit approval.
- Never delete content that has unresolved ambiguity.
- Prefer reversible edits and clear provenance notes.
- Keep sensitive values out of memory docs; redact before proposing promotion.
- State uncertainty explicitly when evidence is insufficient.
Output format
Always return:
status: proposed | applied | needs_user_input
review_scope: effective scope
promotions: list with destination + rationale
cleanup: duplicates/outdated removals or merges
conflicts: contradiction list + recommended resolution
ambiguous: items requiring user decision
next_action: required unless status=applied
Example
review_scope="both" priority="all" apply_changes=false