lore-consult

name	lore-consult
description	Use when about to plan a feature, fix a bug, or touch unfamiliar code in a repo that has a docs/lore/ folder, before writing any implementation — surfaces the business rules, pitfalls, glossary terms, and API map relevant to the task, and flags entries that look stale.

Lore Consult

Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/lore-spec.md first for the structure and entry-meta format.

When to use

Before planning a feature or starting a bug fix — but only when the repo actually has a docs/lore/ folder. If there is no docs/lore/, there is nothing to consult: tell the user briefly and suggest running lore-init to scaffold one, rather than going quiet.

Procedure

1. Find the area. Read docs/lore/README.md and map the current task to one (or more) area. A task can touch several areas; pick all that apply. If the Areas table marks any of them core (per lore-spec's Core areas), read those first — their rules bear the most weight.
2. Reverse-lookup by file. When you already know which files the task will touch, also grep docs/lore/ for `code:` references matching those paths (prefix matches count — an entry pointing at src/payments/ covers files under it). This catches entries filed under an area you didn't map in step 1; the code: meta exists precisely to make this lookup cheap.
3. Read the core files. For each matched area, read its pitfalls.md and business-rules.md. If you are planning a new feature, also read api-map.md when it is present. Resolve the glossary per lore-spec (a root CONTEXT.md when present, otherwise docs/lore/glossary.md / an area's terms.md); if one exists, also grep its term headings (## lines in lore's format, **Term**: lines in CONTEXT.md) for the concepts this task touches and read the matching term entries — the brief's own wording should follow the glossary. When one of these core files has grown long, don't read it wall-to-wall: grep its ## headings and meta lines first, then read only the entries that look relevant.
4. Brief, don't dump. Produce a SHORT brief covering only the rules and pitfalls that bear on this task, together with their code: links — plus at most 1-2 glossary terms when their definitions bear on the task — aim for at most ~5 bullets or ~300 words unless the user explicitly asks for more. Do not paste the whole area. Skip non-active entries (resolved, obsolete) unless one is directly relevant to what you are doing.
5. Check the links. For each entry you surfaced, verify its code: path still exists. If a path is missing or has moved, flag that entry as possibly stale.

Just-in-time cleanup

When step 5 turns up a stale entry — or one that plainly contradicts the current code — offer to fix it on the spot: refresh its updated: date, rewrite it, or mark it obsolete. You are already in context, so this is cheap. Keep it a side-offer the user can decline; never force it, and never let it block the main task.

Adoption feedback (best-effort)

Following lore-spec's feedback log: when your brief surfaces an entry, append a surfaced event for it to docs/lore/.lore-feedback.jsonl. Glossary terms are keyed glossary.md#<Term> (or <area>/terms.md#<Term> after a split; CONTEXT.md#<Term> when the external glossary is canonical). At the end of the task, reconcile each surfaced entry to its real outcome — heeded (the work followed it), redundant (it only confirmed what was already planned), or ignored (skipped, or it turned out wrong). This signal is what lore-check aggregates into its adoption report.

This is strictly best-effort and must never block or delay the task. If the log can't be written, skip it. A session that ends before reconciliation simply leaves the entry as surfaced. If docs/lore/.gitignore doesn't already ignore .lore-feedback.jsonl, add it.

Guardrail

Relevance over completeness — a tight brief beats a full dump. Maintenance is an offer here, not an interruption. Feedback logging is best-effort and never blocks the task.