| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
The .ai/ mirror lagged claude-templates/.ai/ for three workflows (task-audit, task-review, triage-intake) and two scripts (screenshot.py and its test) — earlier commits updated the canonical copies without resyncing the mirror in the same commit. The startup rsync caught it up; this commit tracks the result so the two stay identical.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I added a per-task effort check to the task-review walk. If a task looks like 30 minutes or less and isn't already tagged, mark it :quick: on the heading. When the heading and body don't make the effort clear, ask instead of guessing. A mislabeled :quick: defeats the point, since the tag exists so Craig can grab a genuinely small task in a spare moment.
I edited the canonical claude-templates copy and the synced project mirror together, so the next startup rsync won't revert them.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- todo-cleanup.el: :no-sync: tag now inherits down the outline tree
- task-review.org: completion procedure scoped to top-level entries
- cj-scan.py + cj-remove-block.py: helpers for cj-comment block handling
- inbox-send.py: cross-project messaging via inbox directories
|
|
|
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.
|
