checkpointed-source-intake-writeback

name	checkpointed-source-intake-writeback
description	Process grouped vadimgest-style intake batches into durable notes with exact checkpoint commits and provenance-preserving writeback.

Checkpointed Source Intake Writeback

Use this skill when a batch arrives with grouped source/thread records, per-source line ranges, and an exact checkpoint commit requirement.

Goal

Turn grouped raw evidence into the smallest correct durable home(s) without double-writing, then advance the checkpoint only after the listed records are fully processed.

Workflow

1. Read the batch metadata first. Note:
   • included/excluded sources
   • source line ranges
   • exact commit lines / checkpoint snippet
   • any instruction to avoid broad reads or broad commits
2. Compact by channel/thread first.
   • Merge repeated facts inside the same conversation or activity window.
   • Do not write one note entry per raw row when rows belong to the same exchange.
3. Route facts to the smallest correct durable home.
   • Clear person/deal/company facts go to the entity note with source provenance.
   • If routing is unclear or spans multiple entities, create one sourced Inbox note for the batch with bullets per high-signal group.
   • If one fact affects multiple durable homes, update each relevant note once rather than forcing a single home.
4. Preserve provenance.
   • Include source URIs, source line ranges, or representative vadimgest://... links in the note.
   • Keep summaries concise and factual.
5. Advance the checkpoint only after writeback succeeds.
   • Run the exact checkpoint snippet provided by the batch.
   • Commit only the listed source lines.
   • Do not advance sources you could not fully process.

Pitfalls

• Do not skip the compaction step and start writing from raw rows.
• Do not use a generic commit/advance command when the batch provides an exact snippet.
• Do not create duplicate notes for the same conversation just because it touched multiple topics.
• Do not overfit a single raw line when the surrounding thread changes the meaning.
• Do not let a tiny acknowledgment row hide a durable legal/compliance caveat in the adjacent message; if the target person note is obvious, mirror the caveat there too.
• Do not commit a source line unless the corresponding records were actually triaged and written back.

Verification

• Re-read the touched note lines after patching to confirm the new fact landed where intended.
• Confirm the checkpoint file reflects only the listed source positions.
• In the final report, include the note paths written and whether the exact checkpoint snippet ran.

Reference

• references/checkpointed-intake-patterns.md — session-specific examples and compact rules for batch grouping, routing, and checkpoint gating.
• references/2026-07-02-legal-caution-and-noise-routing.md — tiny operational ping with an attached visa/legal caution; route the caution into the person note when the target is clear and keep tone-only replies as noise.