emerge

name	emerge
description	Detect clusters of scattered ideas in the vault that together form something new — a project or an essay. Unlike drift (a single recurring idea), emerge searches for inter-note connections that have not yet been synthesized, and conclusions that the vault implies but has never drawn. Use manually or automatically after a /harvestdeep.
narrative_critical	true

⚠️ narrative-critical — Skill protected against aggressive optimization

This skill produces a qualitative narrative output. Its effectiveness is measured on the richness of the output produced, not on structural compactness.

For /evaluateskills : in case of mutation, dry-run Sonnet mandatory even if delta < 2. Do NOT apply [LEAN] / [STRUCTURE] in a way that strips narrative instructions (grouping, context, key moments, open questions, tone, narration). Preservation of qualitative content takes priority over line reduction.

Skill: /emerge

Analyzes the vault to detect clusters of scattered ideas that, together, form something new — a project, an essay, an implicit direction.

Key difference with /drift :

• drift = 1 individual idea recurs often
• emerge = N distinct ideas converge toward 1 new structure

Test of true emergence : "It's true but I never said it" (not "I already knew it").

---

Quick Execution Summary

Input : {USER_NAME} launches /emerge or system proposes after /harvestdeep

Output : Max 5 clusters proposed with score/confidence/source notes, awaiting {USER_NAME} validation before creation

Time : ~1-2h complete (depends on vault — Passes 1B/1C are the heavy phases)

Key steps :

1. Read references (5-10 min) — INDEX, {USER_NAME}.md, command-tracker
2. Transverse pass (15-20 min) — detect cross-domain candidates
3. Detail pass (20-30 min) — apply Methods A/B/C/D to candidates
4. Fabrication check (5-10 min) — reject existing ideas
5. Scoring (10 min) — assign numeric scores, sort
6. Presentation (5 min) — show top 5 to {USER_NAME}
7. Creation + linking (15-20 min) — after {USER_NAME} validation

Trigger

• Manual : the user says "/emerge", "do an emerge", "what's emerging from the vault"
• Automatic : Harness proposes after /harvestdeep complete if vault richness OK (managed by post-harvest hook, not via the skill)

---

Step 1 — Collect raw candidates

Vault scan in 2 passes: first orientation + rapid detection, then formal capture.

Phase 1A — Context and vault health (5-10 min)

Read to establish baseline:

1. `04 - Projects/INDEX.md` → active projects (exclude from analysis)
2. `01 - Me/{USER_NAME}.md` → profile, context (for interpreting signals)
3. `99 - Claude Code/command-tracker.md` → date of previous /emerge (avoid redundancy)

Vault health : If < 10 daily notes or 0 notes in key domains (Me/, Projects/, Knowledge/, Sessions/) → stop, signal "Vault insufficiently rich".

Phase 1B — Rapid detection (15-20 min)

Read a sample to identify potential candidates:

• Last 3-5 daily notes: recurring ideas, unresolved tensions?
• One notable note per domain (Me/, Hobbies/, Knowledge/, Projects/Project ideas/, Sessions/)
• Question: "Does this idea from domain A resonate elsewhere in B or C?"

Raw candidates to flag:

• Idea X reappears in 2+ distinct contexts
• Tension Y unresolved (want + obstacle + lead)
• Decision pattern Z revealing implicit belief

If 0 candidates : propose to {USER_NAME} (continue Phase 1C or stop?). If > 15 : sort by domains, top 15.

Phase 1C — Deepening candidates (standardized structure) (20-30 min)

For each raw candidate, reread sources and capture formally:

## Candidate: [Temporary name]

**Domains** : Me/, Knowledge/, Projects/Project ideas/ (2-3)

**Methods confirmed** : [to be added in Step 2]

**Sources** : 
- [[note1]] — signal/citation
- [[note2]] — signal/citation
- [[note3]] — signal/citation

**Key signal** : [1-2 sentences: what connects these sources together]

**Status** : Raw (scoring Step 4)

---

Step 2 — Validate with the 4 methods

For each raw candidate from Step 1, reread sources and tag the methods that confirm the signal. Keep only candidates with 1+ methods.

Process :

1. Candidate X: reread sources [A, B, C]
2. Apply filters A/B/C/D (see sections below)
3. Mark confirmed methods: e.g. "A+C" (thematic + behavioral)
4. If 0 methods confirmed → reject
5. If 1+ methods → keep for Step 3

Summary of 4 methods (application guide)

Filter 1 — Thematic (Method A)

Candidates grouping 3+ sources from at least 2-3 distinct domains, speaking about the same theme.

Criteria:

• No existing [[]] link between sources (not already connected)
• Idea reappears in 2+ different contexts
• Explicit tension: "want to do X" + "obstacle Y" + "solution lead Z"

Filter 2 — Logic (Method B)

Candidates where premises A + B → conclusion C never written.

Explicit signals:

• "I think that...X" in note 1 + context where X applies elsewhere = implicit conclusion
• "the problem is...Y" + solution sketched elsewhere = Y not globally resolved
• Principle in domain 1 applied to domain 2 = new conclusion

Filter 3 — Behavioral (Method C)

Candidates where decision pattern 3+ occurrences reveals implicit belief.

Explicit signals in daily notes:

• "I decided not", "I canceled", "I skipped" (same type of decision avoided 3+ times)
• Energy systematically given to certain domains, procrastinated on others
• Consistent avoidance = unstated belief about risk or value

High confidence : actions harder to fake than words.

Filter 4 — Convergence (Method D)

Candidates where 3+ threads point toward same unnamed destination.

Examples: multiple different projects which, completed, would produce a result never named as a goal.

Low confidence : speculative, consolidate only if convergence clearly visible.

---

Step 3 — Fabrication check (mandatory before Step 4)

Before scoring, verify that a cluster does not already exist in the vault.

Process :

1. Search for the idea as it would be formulated: read 04 - Projects/INDEX.md (active project?), 04 - Projects/Project ideas/ (existing idea note?), 03 - Knowledge/ (concept already synthesized?)
2. If direct match → reject (repetition, not emergent)
3. If idea formulated differently elsewhere → verify if already linked by [[]]: if yes, existing connection, not emergent
4. If passes check → proceed to Step 4 (scoring)

Trace rejections : briefly note rejected candidates for transparency.

---

Step 4 — Score confidence and consolidate

For each cluster that passed fabrication check, assign a numeric score then a level:

Scoring criteria

Element	Points	Notes
Data points	+1 per note	Max +5 (beyond that = more detail data unnecessary)
Domains involved	+1 per domain (min 2)	+1 if 2 domains, +2 if 3+. Capped +2.
Method A (thematic)	+1	If cluster groups 3+ notes thematically
Method B (logic)	+1	If premises A+B → conclusion C never written
Method C (behavior)	+2	If pattern 3+ occurrences (more reliable than B)
Method D (convergence)	+0.5	Speculative, count as half-point
Explicit tension	+1	If cluster contains unresolved tension
Recurrence over period	+1	If signal appears over 7+ days (persistence)

Final levels

Score	Level
6+	High — strong signal, ready to create or validate with {USER_NAME}
4-5	Medium — clear signal but incomplete, to deepen with {USER_NAME}
2-3	Low — speculative, propose as exploratory only
<2	Rejected — insufficient signal, do not present

Present in order: High → Medium → Low. Limit to max 5 clusters presented (highest scores first).

---

Step 5 — Qualify each cluster and propose format

For each detected cluster, determine what it calls for:

Signal	Suggested Output	{USER_NAME} Case
Cluster of technical / product ideas — points to a tool, system, app or SaaS to build	Project → note in 04 - Projects/Project ideas/	Dev tools, automation, infra
Cluster of reflections, observations, tensions — observations about life, work, cognition or concepts without concrete deliverable	Essay → narrative text in 04 - Projects/Project ideas/	ADHD, systems, processes, reflections
Ambiguous cluster — not yet clear if it's a project or a reflection	Propose to {USER_NAME} : "I see two directions, which one do you want to explore?"

Use context: if cluster mentions "build", "tool", "system", "app", "automation" → Project. If mentions "why", "pattern", "belief", "tension" → Essay.

---

Step 6 — Presentation to {USER_NAME}

Format per cluster:

🌱 [Cluster title]
- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] | Score: X/10
- Methods: [A/B/C/D] | Sources: [[note1]], [[note2]], [[note3]]
- What is forming: [1-2 sentences on what these ideas compose]
- Emergence: [Why this is not already in the vault]
- Type: [Project / Essay / To clarify]

No clusters : Display ✅ No cluster — vault healthy, ideas well isolated or capitalized.

Limit : Max 5 clusters, sorted by descending score. If > 5, present top 5 + propose batch 2.

Await {USER_NAME} validation before creation.

---

Step 7 — Creation + Linking (after validation)

7A — Create the note (Project or Essay)

Only create after explicit {USER_NAME} validation.

Project — note in 04 - Projects/Project ideas/[slug-title].md :

---
date: YYYY-MM-DD
source: emerge YYYY-MM-DD
tags: [project-idea]
status: draft
---

# [Title]

## Why

[Context, motivation — where the idea comes from]

## What it solves

[Concrete problem or need]

## How

[General approach, envisioned solution]

## How to get there

[3-5 concrete steps to start]

## Related notes

- [[note1]] — signal
- [[note2]] — signal
- [[note3]] — signal

Essay — same path, tags [essay, draft] :

---
date: YYYY-MM-DD
source: emerge YYYY-MM-DD
tags: [essay, draft]
status: draft
---

# [Title]

## Why I'm writing this

[Impulse, reason for being]

## The problem or tension

[What's missing, unanswered question]

## What I think about it

[Thesis, argument — to be filled in by {USER_NAME}]

## Next steps

[Direction, how to deepen]

---

*Draft — /emerge YYYY-MM-DD*

## Source notes

- [[note1]] — A/B/C/D
- [[note2]] — A/B/C/D
- [[note3]] — A/B/C/D

Use Write tool (not Obsidian API). Path : {VAULT_PATH}\{PROJECTS_FOLDER}\Project ideas\[slug-title].md

7B — Link the sources (after creation)

Add bidirectional links in 3-5 key sources to the new note.

Process :

1. List sources from Step 1
2. Propose {USER_NAME} precise locations per source (which section, which sentence)
3. Validate {USER_NAME}
4. Add via Edit: [[ParentNoteName]] — context or [[ParentNoteName|label]] as needed

Limit 5-7 links (saturation); prioritize relevance.

7C — Trace in Idea Kanban (after creation)

A note created in 04 - Projects/Project ideas/ but absent from the kanban remains a dead file : invisible from the board, never prioritized. This is exactly what produced 9 orphaned essays (all source: emerge). Creation is only complete when the note is also traced.

Process :

1. Target: ## Idea column of {VAULT_PATH}\{CLAUDE_CODE_FOLDER}\Claude Code Kanban.md
2. Construct the line by type:
   • Essay : - [ ] [[04 - Projects/Project ideas/<slug>|Essay — <title>]] — 📝 essay idea (draft, emerge YYYY-MM-DD)
   • Project : - [ ] [[04 - Projects/Project ideas/<slug>|<title>]] — 💡 project idea (draft, emerge YYYY-MM-DD)
3. Announce the exact line to {USER_NAME} and validate (same requirement as linking 7B)
4. Insert via Edit at the end of Idea column, just before ## Blocked

The link points to the existing source file — never duplicate the note.

---

Step 8 — Finalization

After creation + linking (or if 0 cluster):

1. Update 99 - Claude Code/command-tracker.md : /emerge → YYYY-MM-DD
2. Optional (auto batch): recap in 99 - Claude Code/skills-autoresearch-log.md

---

Edge cases

Case	Behavior
Insufficient vault	Stop at Step 1A: "Vault insufficiently rich"
0 candidates after Phase 1B	Ask {USER_NAME} : "Continue Phase 1C (detail) or stop?"
> 15 raw candidates	Sort by domains (richness), keep top 15, propose batch 2
0 validated candidates (Step 2)	Display ✅ "No cluster — vault healthy"
Timeout > 1h	Limit Phase 1 to 30d (instead of complete), signal {USER_NAME}
Borderline (Step 3)	Ask {USER_NAME} : "Rework existing or emergent?"
/emerge in progress	Refuse: "Emerge in progress, wait for completion"
Cluster Method D alone	Score < 3, propose exploratory only

---

Absolute rules

• Never create without explicit validation from {USER_NAME}
• Search for cross-domain connections — the most interesting clusters are often cross-context
• Don't confuse with drift — drift = repetition of one idea; emerge = convergence of multiple distinct ideas
• Fabrication check mandatory before any presentation — an idea already in the vault is not emergent
• One note = one cluster — don't merge two clusters into the same note
• Never propose something already an active project in 04 - Projects/INDEX.md
• Max 5 clusters presented — sort by descending score
• Validate linking before execution — ask OK for each link added

---

Pitfalls to avoid

Pitfall	Correction
Connection disguise — existing links [[]]	Check links: if exists, reject
Forced emergence — invented without vault data (Claude intuition)	Require 3+ concrete sources, traced
Obvious emergence — idea already in vault	Mandatory fabrication check, reject
Worldview creep — signal comes from Claude not vault	Trace each candidate to its sources; reject if unsourced
Orphaned note — file created in Project ideas outside kanban	Step 7C mandatory: trace in Idea column, otherwise creation incomplete

---

Checklist before presentation

• 3+ sources per cluster (Step 1)
• Methods A/B/C/D applied (Step 2)
• Fabrication check passed (Step 3)
• Score 2+ otherwise reject (Step 4)
• Max 5 clusters, descending score (Step 6)
• Sources traced with signals cited (Step 6)
• Validation {USER_NAME} before creation (Step 7)
• Note traced in Kanban Idea — file not orphaned (Step 7C)