| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The triage-intake workflow had every source baked into one file, so adding or changing a source meant editing the workflow itself. I replaced it with a source-agnostic engine plus per-source plugins named triage-intake.<source>.org. The engine carries the anchor/sentinel logic, the four-bucket model, the Phase A-D orchestration, the todo.org persistence convention, and the exit criteria. Each source's scan, classify, render, and action knowledge moved into its own plugin.
Four general plugins ship in the template: personal-gmail, personal-calendar, cmail, and github-prs. Project-specific sources live in the project's .ai/project-workflows/ and are never synced. Phase 0 globs both directories so a project source can't silently drop out of the sweep.
I taught INDEX.org and the startup workflow-discovery drift check the namespace. A file matching <engine>.*.org is a plugin of that engine, not an orphan, and gets no trigger entry of its own. A "run the triage-intake workflow" request routes to the engine, never to a plugin.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These two workflows form a reviewer side and an author side for taking a design spec to implementation-ready. spec-review judges a spec against a readiness gate, reads the code before critiquing, evaluates across dimensions, assigns a rubric (Ready / Ready-with-caveats / Not-ready / Needs-research), and writes a <spec>-review.org file when it isn't ready. spec-response consumes that file: it decides accept / modify / reject for every recommendation, weaves the accepts into the spec body, records the modifies and rejects with reasons in a "Review dispositions" section, and reconciles tensions when coupled specs get reviewed together. The review file is the contract between them.
Both were validated by a real run on 2026-05-23 before landing here. I then reviewed them against established practice and tightened five things. The readiness gate now covers security/privacy and observability, since a spec shouldn't pass with those undefined. Phase 1 is a fast triage and Phase 3 is the authoritative gate after the code read. Finding severity maps to blocking power. A rejection goes back to the reviewer instead of standing as a unilateral call. And the response loop has an explicit termination condition.
I added both to INDEX.org under a new "Specs and design" section with trigger phrases, cross-linked as a pair, and kept the canonical and mirror copies identical.
|
| |
|
|
| |
A task audit reconciles each open task's recorded content against reality (sessions, email, chat, ticketing, calendar, recordings) and fixes the stale facts. That's distinct from task-review, which grooms relevance and priority. The two compose: review keeps the list lean, and audit keeps the survivors factually honest. Registered it in the workflow INDEX with its trigger phrases.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The new task-review.org workflow is the daily habit that retires the old date-coverage scan. It surfaces the oldest-unreviewed top-level tasks, walks them one at a time, and records each outcome — keep, re-grade, kill, mark DOING, or edit — stamping :LAST_REVIEWED: as it goes. It's a pure Claude workflow, no elisp. open-tasks.org displays the list; this one changes it.
task-review-staleness.sh gains a --list mode that emits the N oldest-unreviewed tasks (line, review date, heading), oldest first, so the workflow walks a deterministic batch instead of eyeballing todo.org. Never-reviewed and unparseable-date tasks sort oldest. Seven new bats cases cover ordering, the count limit, exclusions, and output format; count mode is unchanged.
startup.org gains the matching nudge. Phase A counts tasks unreviewed for >7 days and Phase C surfaces one line when that count is non-zero, pointing at the workflow. It lives in the template startup.org rather than the project-only startup-extras layer, so every project picks it up the same way it picks up the wrap-up health check.
The INDEX entry is added with the "task review" triggers the rename freed up.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The list-and-pick-next workflow was named task-review.org, but "task review" better describes a list-hygiene habit that re-grades and prunes tasks, not one that just displays them. I'm freeing the task-review.org name (and the "task review" trigger) for that habit, which lands next.
This workflow goes back to open-tasks.org — the name it carried before it merged with whats-next.org. Its content and INDEX entry drop the "task review" trigger and point at task-review.org for the hygiene habit. Behavior is unchanged; only the name and the routing phrases move.
The rename touches both the canonical workflow and the project mirror.
|
| |
|
|
| |
New on-demand triage-intake workflow. It scans every inbox source (the three mail accounts, Slack, Linear, open PRs, both calendars, recent todo.org edits), surfaces what moved, runs the Linear Dev-Review sweep, and marks all unread INBOX mail plus every touched Slack conversation read. Also registered in INDEX.org, and the stale triage-intake reference dropped from wrap-it-up.org.
|
| |
|
|
| |
clean-todo is the manual entry point for tidying todo.org: it runs the hygiene pass, then --archive-done (relocate completed level-2 subtrees into "Resolved"), then summarizes what changed and leaves the diff uncommitted for review. The wrap-up flow already does both passes at session end; clean-todo runs them on demand. It's listed in INDEX.org under the usual trigger phrases.
|
|
|
Replace the seed notes.org with project-specific context (layout, install modes, task tracker location, recent inflection point). Bring in the synced template surfaces (protocols, workflows, scripts, references, retrospectives, someday-maybe) as tracked content for this content/documentation project.
|
