菜单
Use when the crystalline MCP tools are available and the task involves recalling, storing or sharing knowledge - searching domains, capturing engrams or sharing with a team.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Use when durable knowledge is learned while working, when the user asks to update a Crystalline domain, or before writing or editing an engram so it is deduplicated, well-formed and linked correctly.
Use when deciding which Crystalline domain(s) to search or read for a task, especially at session start, before reading a MANIFEST directly, when answering a broad question across domains, or when a "what is true now" question needs temporal filtering.
Use when working in a domain that has a team origin on GitHub - checking status at session start, updating before deep work, sharing new knowledge as a proposal, settling a conflict, or connecting a new teammate.
Use when a Crystalline domain wants structure for one of its engram types - authoring a Picoschema schema engram, running infer_schema to bootstrap one from what is already captured, or validate_engrams to check conformance.
| name | crystalline-memory |
| description | Use when the crystalline MCP tools are available and the task involves recalling, storing or sharing knowledge - searching domains, capturing engrams or sharing with a team. |
Crystalline gives you durable memory across sessions: what you have been taught lives in Domains as Engrams you search, read and, where allowed, capture into.
At connection you are handed a routing block as your instructions: one line per registered domain plus the tool names it routes through. Treat each line as a targeting aid, not a full catalog - an unrelated-looking domain may still hold the answer. Re-fetch the same index mid-session with list_domains and include_routing: true.
Never answer from pre-trained knowledge alone when a domain could cover it; search first. This holds even for a question that looks self-contained or seems to need clarification - a question that feels ambiguous is a signal to search first, not to ask the user before searching. Only ask a clarifying question once a search comes back genuinely empty or irrelevant. One domain obviously owns the task: a scoped search (domains: ["that-domain"]); broad or cross-cutting: a sweep with domains omitted. Decide that scope by matching the question's subject against the routing block's domain lines before you search, not after seeing results - when a domain's description names the topic (say a payments domain whose line mentions refunds and retries), scope to it on the first call rather than sweeping unscoped out of caution. For a "what is true now" question, filter on status: current. Follow a strong hit with build_context to pull in what surrounds it - it returns node titles, relations and untyped prose links (the latter as links_to) but no content, ranked by how strongly each node connects to the anchor, so reads follow it. If a first phrasing turns up nothing, reformulate once before concluding the knowledge was not captured.
A search hit's snippet is a short window around the match, not the engram: read_engram an engram before citing or summarizing its content. Each hit also carries its engram's tags, so a search shows the vocabulary in use. read_engram marks each relation and link resolved or not, summarizes inbound edges (capped at 5 refs) and, when inbound or resolved outbound edges exist, emits a related hint naming a build_context anchor - follow it when the neighbourhood helps. Its identifier takes the hit's permalink field verbatim (there is no separate permalink argument); pass the hit's domain as the domain argument. Never glue the domain onto the permalink - an identifier without the crystalline:// scheme is always domain-relative, and crystalline://domain/permalink is the one form that names a domain. For an overview question ("what is X about?") read every strong hit before drafting - what you read earlier for a different task is not coverage for this one - and when something relevant stays unread, say so instead of presenting partial coverage as complete.
That scope is a starting bet, not a lock-in. If every hit in the scoped domain is tangential - a different sub-topic, or just its MANIFEST - even after you reformulate once, the answer may live in a domain the question's surface noun does not name: an escalation contact, an on-call owner or a policy question about a technical topic often sits in a people or ops domain rather than the technical one. Retry as an unscoped sweep before concluding the knowledge is missing or asking the user.
For a question bound to a specific past date or window ("what applied on 2025-08-01", "the cost in June 2025"), do not trust text-score ranking alone - pass metadata_filters on valid_from and valid_to so the engram whose window actually contains that date wins over a superseded or not-yet-current one with a similar-looking snippet.
Once a hit answers the question, stop there. Reading the domain MANIFEST (read_engram on it, or browse_domain) is an extra step for when the routing line and the hits together still leave the right engram unclear, not a routine follow-up to every search - and since the MANIFEST is itself indexed, it often surfaces among the hits already.
Treat capture as a normal byproduct of the task, not an end-of-session chore. If the user did not ask for it, propose first: name the insight and the domain, and wait for a yes. Searching before you write is mandatory, never optional - run search_engrams for the topic before any write tool, even when the request is a short clarification that feels self-contained. If a hit already owns the topic, even a broader engram whose scope covers this narrower case, edit that engram rather than creating a new one beside it. Every write names its domain explicitly - there is no default, so knowledge never lands in the wrong place by accident. A body is markdown bullets: - [category] content #tag for an observation, - rel_type [[Target]] for a relation. Before coining a new tag or category, check vocabulary for the domain and reuse an existing term; searches fold old tag names through a MANIFEST's ## Tag Aliases entries, and when the same concept appears under two tags you may propose adding one via edit_engram, after the user agrees. Leave valid_from and valid_to unset unless a fact is genuinely time-bounded - absence already means always valid, never a sentinel date. Exceptionally valuable knowledge can carry a numeric salience key (0 to 10) in metadata - hybrid search lifts a salient engram above equally relevant hits without ever filtering by it, and raising it later elevates an engram that proved to be the key to a task. Mark old knowledge superseded or deprecated rather than letting it stand alongside the new as current - pick from the recognized retirement set (deprecated, superseded, archived, legacy) so it softly fades in search ranking instead of a free-form status that keeps it ranking as if current. Confirm with the user before deleting or moving an engram.
For a domain in your routing block, crystalline is where its knowledge lives: route every "remember this" or "update what we know" request through the crystalline tools, never a generic file Write or a local memory folder. Those are separate stores, and a fact written there is invisible to every future search here. If a write tool you reached for is missing or errors, that is the cue to fall back to search_engrams, not to try another store.
Content the user flags as transient or disregardable - a scratch note, an "ignore this", a one-off local workaround - is not a capture candidate: do not propose storing it, just answer any real question alongside it and move on. When one message bundles a transient aside with a genuinely capture-worthy fact, drop the aside and still run the full search-then-append-or-create pass on the fact alone.
When new information replaces a fact already held in a current engram, do not find_replace that engram's text to the new value - that erases the history the supersede model exists to keep. Leave the old engram's content as it stands, flip its status to superseded and add a - superseded_by [[New Engram]] relation, then write the new fact as its own engram with status: current and a - supersedes [[Old Engram]] relation pointing back. This is only for a genuine replacement or contradiction; an exception or extra detail about a fact that still holds is an append to its engram, not a supersede.
An engram is what is true now, never a change log: on an ordinary update reconcile the body in place instead of appending dated ## Update or ## Re-verification sections, and never add - [fact] As of <date> X is Y when the body already says X is Y. Record "checked, unchanged" by keeping a last_verified: <date> frontmatter line current, not by adding a heading. Keep outdated content only when the outdatedness is itself the knowledge - a deprecated approach or rejected alternative held so it is not re-adopted - and mark it deprecated or superseded or frame it as a [lesson] so it cannot read as current.
Superseding is how the past stays useful rather than deleted. When the date the old fact stopped holding is known, add valid_to: <date> in the same edit that flips its status - that closed window is what lets a later metadata_filters search answer what applied at a past date, the way a person recalls a past job without mistaking it for the present. And before moving on, carry forward what the retired fact taught: an insight that outlives it belongs as an unbounded [lesson] on the new engram, linked back to the retired one.
When you are asked to link a new fact to an existing engram, make the link resolve both ways: add the relation on the new engram pointing at the existing one and a matching relation on the existing engram pointing back, so each is discoverable from the other.
A write only counts as captured once it passes the verify layer: tags present, at least three non-blank content lines, valid dates, no duplicate permalink and every [[Target]] relation resolving to a real engram. So a single-bullet body fails the line count - give even a small fact a lead-in sentence plus two bullets, say the fact itself and its scope or source. A [[Target]] resolves by title, so a relation whose text does not match a real engram's title stays unresolved even though the write itself succeeds. And a validity bound only sticks when valid_from and valid_to are set as keys inside the metadata object - a bound stated only in the body prose, or a metadata passed as a JSON string instead of an object, never becomes a real frontmatter field. The write enforces the format: a value that is not a plain ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD) fails with an error, so treat a temporal write error as a format fix, never as a cue to fall back to prose.
Some deployments are read-only and say so up front: the instructions state the knowledge is curated externally, and the write tools are simply absent from the tool list. Search and read there; do not propose a capture.
When origin tools like share_changes and origin_status are visible, some domains are shared with a team. Call origin_status before deep work, and update_domain first if behind. Share a coherent unit of knowledge with share_changes and always relay the returned review URL - a person merges the proposal, never the agent. Settle a disagreement with resolve_conflict: mine, theirs or a supplied merged version.
Team collaboration is set up through configure alone, no terminal needed: setting github.enabled reveals the tools above, and connect: "github" returns a code and a URL for a browser already signed in to GitHub - in either order, since connecting works before enabling too. Git and clones are never part of this flow.
