learn

Learn — Sweep Raw Memory, Crystallize Explicit Lessons

Two jobs, in order: (1) mechanically true up the chunk index so every conversation and doc is searchable memory, and (2) write a vault note for every explicit lesson this session — user corrections, explicit save-requests, presented conclusions that were later overturned, and confirmed approaches (user-praised or self-validated). Nothing else.

Raw event memory is AUTOMATIC. engram ingest chunks and embeds session transcripts and markdown itself — no summaries, no episode notes, no arc detection. The agent's only writing job is crystallizing EXPLICIT lessons. Do not reconstruct the old episode workflow (engram transcript, engram learn episode) — it is gone.

Step 1 — Sweep (always, first)

engram ingest --auto

That's it. The binary stats every known source (repo markdown, .claude dirs, all session transcripts), re-chunks and re-embeds only what changed — existing chunks are never deleted (append-only history). Unchanged corpus → returns in seconds. Report the one-line tally it prints (or "memory index up to date").

If the command fails, surface the error and continue to Step 2 — explicit lessons must not be lost to an ingest hiccup.

Step 1.5 — Vocab liveness check

Run engram vocab stats.

If the output includes a line matching verdict: REFIT_PENDING (<reason>), run the vocab refit flow autonomously — do not defer to the user:

1. Run engram vocab refit --emit-request. Save its JSON output.
2. Derive a YAML refit plan from the JSON (review terms, propose merges/splits/removals for orphans < 2 members and hubs > 25%). Write the plan to /tmp/vocab-refit-plan.yaml.
3. Run engram vocab refit --plan /tmp/vocab-refit-plan.yaml to apply the plan.
4. Report loudly: "Vocab refit applied: . Triggered by: ."

If the verdict is verdict: OK, continue to Step 2 with no further vocab action.

Also check the QA round-2 gate line. If the output includes qa round-2 gate: READY (...), report to Joe: "QA round-2 validation is due (≥20 pairs captured). Please schedule the round-2 gates recorded in docs/ROADMAP.md (Track C): P2′ attribution fidelity, P3′ distribution, Arm V larger-n." Do NOT run round-2 validation autonomously — it requires Joe's oversight.

Step 2 — Crystallize explicit lessons (only when they exist)

Scan THIS session for exactly four kinds of moments:

1. Corrections — the user corrected your approach or behavior ("don't suppress lint warnings — fix the underlying issue", "never amend pushed commits").

   REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: invoke the write-memory skill with this handoff — kind=feedback, slug, source ("session , context: "), situation (retrieval-shaped), behavior, impact, action; plus supersedes details if this correction corrects an existing vault note. write-memory composes, executes, and reports the note path.

2. Explicit save-requests — the user said "remember this/that X", "note for next time", "write this down".

   REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: invoke the write-memory skill with this handoff — kind=fact, slug, source ("session , context: "), situation (retrieval-shaped), subject, predicate, object; plus supersedes details if this fact corrects an existing vault note. write-memory composes, executes, and reports the note path.

3. Reversals — a conclusion, design, or verdict that was PRESENTED (to the user, a review gate, or a committed plan) and later OVERTURNED — by you, a reviewer, or an instrument (a superseded design, a retro-invalidated finding, an instrument-invalid measurement, a redrawn boundary). Nobody needs to have SAID the correction — self-discovered reversals qualify, and a repo-doc CORRECTION section or postscript does NOT count as capture (record-correction ≠ lesson-capture). For each reversal, REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: invoke the write-memory skill with this handoff — kind=feedback, slug, source ("session , context: "), situation (retrieval-shaped: when does this failure mode apply), behavior = what the original reasoning did wrong, impact = what the reversal cost, action = the guard that would have prevented it — the ROOT CAUSE, not a narrative of the flip; plus supersedes details if the reversal corrects an existing vault note.

4. Confirmed approaches (positive reinforcement) — a specific, generalizable approach was validated as good, either by the user or by the outcome. The positive mirror of kinds 1 and 3; it fires on EITHER trigger:

   • 4a — user-confirmed: the user explicitly praised or thanked a SPECIFIC behavior you could restate as a reusable tactic ("thanks for attaching the file — easier to read from my phone" → "attach deliverable files instead of inlining them"). A bare pleasantry naming no behavior ("thanks!", "great work") does NOT qualify. (If the user also instructs "do that going forward", that is additionally a save-request — kind 2.)
   • 4b — self-validated bet: you made a genuine guess, or were uncertain about a plan, concept, or idea, ACTED on it (embodied it in the work — a chosen approach, an implementation, a plan step, a command run), and an OBSERVABLE, session-recorded outcome then confirmed it worked (a test passed, the user confirmed it, an artifact functioned, a blocker cleared). The exact positive mirror of a reversal: a bet that succeeded instead of failing.

   The action is capturing what WORKED — NOT logging every success. A bare pleasantry, a routine success with no bet behind it, or an unconfirmed guess is never the signal — just as a repo-doc CORRECTION does not count as reversal-capture, a routine success does not count as reinforcement-capture; the signal is a resolved uncertainty or an explicit specific confirmation, never "it worked". For each confirmed approach, REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: invoke the write-memory skill with this handoff — kind=feedback, slug, source ("session , context: "), situation (retrieval-shaped: when would this approach apply again), behavior = what worked, impact = the confirming evidence (the user's quote for 4a, or the observed outcome that resolved the uncertainty for 4b), action = keep doing it + its trigger conditions; plus supersedes details if this confirmation corrects an existing vault note.

Rules:

• State the general principle, not the session-specific instance — future-you recalls by situation similarity, not by remembering this session.
• The --situation phrase is the retrieval handle: phrase it the way a future task would be described ("releasing a Go module", "writing eval harness metrics").
• One note per distinct principle. An explicit save-request ALWAYS gets its note, immediately — "remember this" means stop and write before anything else.
• If the new lesson CORRECTS, narrows, or refutes an existing vault note, include the superseded note's basename, type, and claim in the handoff.
• No moments of any kind → write nothing. Routine work is already captured by Step 1; a session with no corrections, no save-requests, no reversals, and no confirmed approaches is a two-command learn (sweep + report).

Step 2.5 — Ad-hoc QA capture (only when a new substantive Q&A occurred this session)

Scan THIS session for substantive answered questions: a question was substantively answered if the answer body contains ≥1 [[full-basename]] wikilink OR if you crystallized a new vault note (Step 2) as the answer. Both conditions make the answer traceable (D2 observable bar). Skip questions answered with generic advice or without [[...]] wikilinks.

For each uncaptured substantive Q&A from this session, invoke the write-memory skill with this handoff — kind=qa, slug, verbatim question, answer body (copy; no re-derive), contributor basenames, certainty, source ("ad-hoc capture, learn session ").

Contributors come ONLY from [[full-basename]] wikilinks in the written answer — never free-listed. Do NOT pre-validate whether contributors exist in the vault; extract the wikilink content verbatim and include the basenames in the write-memory handoff. Validation happens at write time; if write-memory reports a contributor rejection, surface it. If no [[...]] wikilinks appear in the answer and no note was crystallized, skip (D2 bar not met).

Gate — do not duplicate: if a QA pair was already written (e.g. by recall's Step 4 during this session), do not write it again here. One pair per distinct answered question.

Red flags — STOP and re-read

Sign you're off-script	What you should be doing
You ran engram transcript anything	Step 1's engram ingest --auto replaced the whole transcript workflow
You're writing an episode or summarizing the session into a note	Don't — raw chunks already hold it
You're writing facts for things nobody asked you to remember	Only corrections, save-requests, reversals, and confirmed approaches crystallize here
You're writing a confirmed-approach note for a routine success or a bare "thanks!"	Kind 4 needs a genuine bet with observable confirmation, or explicit praise of a SPECIFIC behavior — never mere success
You skipped the sweep because "nothing changed"	The sweep IS the check — it costs seconds when nothing changed
--tier flags or L3/ADR writing	Tiers are not part of learn anymore
You corrected a repo doc (CORRECTION/postscript) and skipped the vault note	Write the vault note for the reversal's root cause — record-correction is not capture