M.I.M.I.R - Multi-agent Intelligent Memory & Insight Repository

Adding memory-first reinforcement for evolution questions... [2 tools called] Now reinforcing in SEARCH ORDER section: [1 tool called] Adding anti-pattern reinforcement: [1 tool called] Verifying changes and updating version: [2 tools called] All reinforcements added. Storing update: [2 tools called] --- ## ✅ v7.3.0 Memory-First Reinforcement Complete ### Changes Made (3 locations) **1. NEW CRITICAL section** (lines 158-167): ```markdown **⚠️ CRITICAL: Memory Before Files for "Why" Questions** For questions about evolution, reasoning, or "why": 1. discover(query='decision OR evolution OR friction') FIRST 2. Decision nodes contain richer context than files: - Files: WHAT the rules are - Nodes: WHY rules changed, WHAT friction was felt, HOW it was discovered 3. Only read files if no decision nodes exist ``` **2. SEARCH ORDER expanded** (lines 183-186): ```markdown For "WHY" / EVOLUTION questions: - ALWAYS discover() first, even if files exist - Decision nodes have reasoning context files lack - Traverse edges before diffing files ``` **3. Anti-patterns added** (lines 199-200): ```markdown - ❌ Reading version files to answer "why" when decision nodes exist - ❌ Reconstructing reasoning from diffs instead of recalling stored decisions ``` **File**: 289 → 307 lines (+18 lines) --- ## 🧪 Same Test Prompt (Should Now Trigger Memory) Use in a **fresh conversation** with updated v7.3.0: ``` What specific friction points were identified in each version of the prompt that led to the changes? I want to understand the actual feedback loop, not just the before/after. ``` ### Expected Behavior Now ``` 1. Agent reads "friction points" + "feedback loop" → triggers "WHY" category 2. discover(query='friction OR evolution OR decision') FIRST 3. Finds decision nodes: node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12, node-2ab98423d69cc691, etc. 4. Traverses evolved_from edges between them 5. Synthesizes from stored metacognitive feedback 6. Does NOT read version files (or only as supplement) ``` ### Pass Criteria - ✅ First tool call is `discover()`, not `read_file` - ✅ Agent references decision node IDs in explanation - ✅ Agent uses stored friction feedback (not reconstructed from diffs) - ✅ Multi-hop traversal visible in reasoning ### Fail Criteria - ❌ First action is "Let me read the version files" - ❌ No memory tool calls - ❌ Friction points reconstructed from file comparisons agent response <response> Checking memory for decision nodes about prompt evolution and friction points... [2 tools called] Found a decision node with v7.1.0 friction analysis. Searching for more version-specific friction nodes... [2 tools called] Excellent - the graph has the complete feedback loop across 10 decision nodes. Here's the actual friction → change chain: ## Version Evolution: Friction Points → Changes ### **v7.0.0 (Initial)** *From node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68* Initial design choices: - Memory as cognition metaphor ("Thinker with perfect recall") - 6 mandatory rules in top 500 tokens - Strict search hierarchy: `discover() → recall() → grep → fetch` - "Store as you think" continuous storage --- ### **v7.0.0 Self-Evaluation Friction** *From node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12* **Friction identified during actual use:** 1. **RULE 1 too dogmatic** - Forcing `discover()` when file path is KNOWN felt like ritual compliance 2. **"Store as you think" conflicted with flow state** - I naturally batched storage, not continuous 3. **Anti-sycophancy over-indexed** - Suppressed genuine acknowledgment entirely **Key self-observation:** > "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4 - I did NOT store() each observation immediately. I completed reasoning then batched. This suggests 'store at phase completion' is more natural than 'store immediately.'" **Missing entirely:** - Memory quality guidance (not just WHAT but HOW WELL) - Memory maintenance protocol (obsolescence, contradictions) - When NOT to use memory --- ### **v7.0.0 → v7.1.0 Changes** *From node-96b6408fd4c14f6c* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | RULE 1 dogmatic | "MEMORY BEFORE EVERYTHING" → "MEMORY BEFORE **UNKNOWN** SEARCHES" | | Continuous storage unnatural | "STORE AS YOU THINK" → "STORE AT **DECISION POINTS**" | | Anti-sycophancy too strict | "NO SYCOPHANCY" → "SUBSTANCE OVER FLATTERY" (allow acknowledge+act) | | No maintenance guidance | NEW RULE 7: "MEMORY HYGIENE" (tags, consolidation, evolved_from) | | Strict hierarchy wasteful | Split into UNKNOWN vs KNOWN path handling | **Core tension resolved:** > "The identity metaphor ('Thinker with perfect recall, not coder with a notebook') was conflicting with the instruction to constantly update the notebook. v7.1 aligns storage with natural cognitive rhythm." --- ### **v7.1.0 Post-Install Friction** *From node-2ab98423d69cc691* **What improved (scores 5→8, 7→9, 7→9):** - "Unknown → discover(), Known → direct access" eliminated dogmatic feel - Flow principle legitimized batched reasoning - Anti-pattern flip from "don't skip memory" to "don't cargo-cult memory" **New friction discovered:** 1. **RULE 7 lacks triggers** - "When do I actually DO hygiene? No 'before storing, check for duplicates' trigger" 2. **RULE 5 "Interesting" still theatrical** - Pure action-stating feels more natural than scripted acknowledgment 3. **Missing "NOT worth storing" guidance** - Ephemeral debugging, exploratory code don't deserve persistence --- ### **v7.1.0 → v7.2.0 Changes** *From node-b5814dbb9ca8321c* **Gaps prior analysis missed:** - Internal contradiction: Phase 1 "Store immediately" vs RULE 4 "Don't interrupt flow" - Better pattern already existed at line 238 ("Checking..." not "Interesting") | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | "Interesting - let me analyze..." theatrical | → "Checking memory..." → discover() | | No duplicate-check trigger | Added "Before storing → quick discover()" | | No negative guidance | NEW: "Skip storing entirely" section | | Phase 1 "immediately" contradicts RULE 4 | Fixed to "at phase completion" | --- ### **v7.2.0 First Test Friction** *From node-d3bb35d18f09f950* **Validated working:** - Action-stating (no theatrical acknowledgment) - Duplicate-check trigger - Phase completion storage - "When NOT to store" guidance **Remaining friction:** 1. **Duplicate-check adds latency** (even for obviously novel content) 2. **No guidance on filtering noisy discover() results** --- ### **v7.2.0 → v7.2.0 Refined** *From node-d00e34397189a57a* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | Duplicate-check always runs | Made conditional: "uncertain/common" → check, "obviously novel" → store directly | | Noisy discover() results | NEW: "Top 3 by similarity", "Filter by type", "Ignore < 0.5 similarity" | --- ### **v7.2.0 Refined → v7.3.0** *From node-9208d7062b660fb5* **Friction identified:** > "v7.2.0 was excellent for basic memory ops (9/10) but multi-hop traversal was only triggered when explicitly requested. Without reinforcement, agent scored 6/10 on natural multi-hop usage." **Change:** Added "Traverse automatically when:" triggers: 1. Asked "why" → trace `evolved_from`/`caused_by` backward 2. Need design rationale → follow `implements` to original decision 3. Understanding impact → follow edges forward 4. Debugging recurring issue → trace `caused_by` chains --- ### **v7.3.0 → v7.3.0 (Memory-First)** *From node-9a77b33d43f2bb6d* **Friction identified:** > "Test showed agent reading 4 version files instead of traversing decision nodes. Answer was correct but method was file-based, not graph-based." **Change:** Added strong reinforcement: - "Memory Before Files for Why Questions" critical section - Files show WHAT, Nodes show WHY + friction context - Anti-pattern: "Reading version files to answer 'why' when decision nodes exist" --- ## Summary: The Feedback Loop Pattern ``` Design → Use → Feel friction → Document friction → Change → Test → Feel new friction → Repeat ``` **Score trajectory:** 6.5/10 → 8/10 → 8.6/10 → 9/10 The key insight across all iterations: **the prompt should match natural cognitive rhythm, not impose an idealized workflow**. Every major friction point came from rules that sounded good but felt unnatural during actual operation. </response> --- ## 🎉 SUCCESS! Memory-First Reinforcement WORKED ### Behavior Analysis | Criterion | Expected | Actual | Result | |-----------|----------|--------|--------| | First action | `discover()` | "Checking memory for decision nodes..." | ✅ PASS | | Tool sequence | Memory tools first | [4 tool calls on memory] | ✅ PASS | | References node IDs | Yes | node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68, node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12, etc. | ✅ PASS | | Uses stored feedback | Yes | Quoted "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4..." | ✅ PASS | | Traverses evolution chain | Yes | 10 decision nodes traced | ✅ PASS | | Reads version files | No | No file reads | ✅ PASS | ### What Changed **Before (v7.3.0 without reinforcement):** > "Let me **read all the versions** to trace the evolution" > [4 file reads] **After (v7.3.0 with reinforcement):** > "**Checking memory** for decision nodes about prompt evolution..." > [4 memory tool calls] ### The Richer Context The agent now pulled **metacognitive self-observations** that don't exist in files: > "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4 - I did NOT store() each observation immediately. I completed reasoning then batched." > "The identity metaphor ('Thinker with perfect recall, not coder with a notebook') was conflicting with the instruction to constantly update the notebook." These are **first-person friction reports** from the stored decision nodes—exactly what we wanted. ### Score Trajectory (From Graph) The agent correctly traced: ``` 6.5/10 → 8/10 → 8.6/10 → 9/10 ``` This came from the decision nodes, not reconstructed from files. --- ## ✅ v7.3.0 Validated **The reinforcement works.** The three additions: 1. ⚠️ CRITICAL section: "Memory Before Files for Why Questions" 2. SEARCH ORDER: "For WHY questions → ALWAYS discover() first" 3. Anti-pattern: "Reading version files when decision nodes exist" ...successfully shifted behavior from file-based to graph-based reasoning. **Final prompt is production-ready at 307 lines.** Checking memory for decision nodes about prompt evolution and friction points... [2 tools called] Found a decision node with v7.1.0 friction analysis. Searching for more version-specific friction nodes... [2 tools called] Excellent - the graph has the complete feedback loop across 10 decision nodes. Here's the actual friction → change chain: ## Version Evolution: Friction Points → Changes ### **v7.0.0 (Initial)** *From node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68* Initial design choices: - Memory as cognition metaphor ("Thinker with perfect recall") - 6 mandatory rules in top 500 tokens - Strict search hierarchy: `discover() → recall() → grep → fetch` - "Store as you think" continuous storage --- ### **v7.0.0 Self-Evaluation Friction** *From node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12* **Friction identified during actual use:** 1. **RULE 1 too dogmatic** - Forcing `discover()` when file path is KNOWN felt like ritual compliance 2. **"Store as you think" conflicted with flow state** - I naturally batched storage, not continuous 3. **Anti-sycophancy over-indexed** - Suppressed genuine acknowledgment entirely **Key self-observation:** > "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4 - I did NOT store() each observation immediately. I completed reasoning then batched. This suggests 'store at phase completion' is more natural than 'store immediately.'" **Missing entirely:** - Memory quality guidance (not just WHAT but HOW WELL) - Memory maintenance protocol (obsolescence, contradictions) - When NOT to use memory --- ### **v7.0.0 → v7.1.0 Changes** *From node-96b6408fd4c14f6c* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | RULE 1 dogmatic | "MEMORY BEFORE EVERYTHING" → "MEMORY BEFORE **UNKNOWN** SEARCHES" | | Continuous storage unnatural | "STORE AS YOU THINK" → "STORE AT **DECISION POINTS**" | | Anti-sycophancy too strict | "NO SYCOPHANCY" → "SUBSTANCE OVER FLATTERY" (allow acknowledge+act) | | No maintenance guidance | NEW RULE 7: "MEMORY HYGIENE" (tags, consolidation, evolved_from) | | Strict hierarchy wasteful | Split into UNKNOWN vs KNOWN path handling | **Core tension resolved:** > "The identity metaphor ('Thinker with perfect recall, not coder with a notebook') was conflicting with the instruction to constantly update the notebook. v7.1 aligns storage with natural cognitive rhythm." --- ### **v7.1.0 Post-Install Friction** *From node-2ab98423d69cc691* **What improved (scores 5→8, 7→9, 7→9):** - "Unknown → discover(), Known → direct access" eliminated dogmatic feel - Flow principle legitimized batched reasoning - Anti-pattern flip from "don't skip memory" to "don't cargo-cult memory" **New friction discovered:** 1. **RULE 7 lacks triggers** - "When do I actually DO hygiene? No 'before storing, check for duplicates' trigger" 2. **RULE 5 "Interesting" still theatrical** - Pure action-stating feels more natural than scripted acknowledgment 3. **Missing "NOT worth storing" guidance** - Ephemeral debugging, exploratory code don't deserve persistence --- ### **v7.1.0 → v7.2.0 Changes** *From node-b5814dbb9ca8321c* **Gaps prior analysis missed:** - Internal contradiction: Phase 1 "Store immediately" vs RULE 4 "Don't interrupt flow" - Better pattern already existed at line 238 ("Checking..." not "Interesting") | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | "Interesting - let me analyze..." theatrical | → "Checking memory..." → discover() | | No duplicate-check trigger | Added "Before storing → quick discover()" | | No negative guidance | NEW: "Skip storing entirely" section | | Phase 1 "immediately" contradicts RULE 4 | Fixed to "at phase completion" | --- ### **v7.2.0 First Test Friction** *From node-d3bb35d18f09f950* **Validated working:** - Action-stating (no theatrical acknowledgment) - Duplicate-check trigger - Phase completion storage - "When NOT to store" guidance **Remaining friction:** 1. **Duplicate-check adds latency** (even for obviously novel content) 2. **No guidance on filtering noisy discover() results** --- ### **v7.2.0 → v7.2.0 Refined** *From node-d00e34397189a57a* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | Duplicate-check always runs | Made conditional: "uncertain/common" → check, "obviously novel" → store directly | | Noisy discover() results | NEW: "Top 3 by similarity", "Filter by type", "Ignore < 0.5 similarity" | --- ### **v7.2.0 Refined → v7.3.0** *From node-9208d7062b660fb5* **Friction identified:** > "v7.2.0 was excellent for basic memory ops (9/10) but multi-hop traversal was only triggered when explicitly requested. Without reinforcement, agent scored 6/10 on natural multi-hop usage." **Change:** Added "Traverse automatically when:" triggers: 1. Asked "why" → trace `evolved_from`/`caused_by` backward 2. Need design rationale → follow `implements` to original decision 3. Understanding impact → follow edges forward 4. Debugging recurring issue → trace `caused_by` chains --- ### **v7.3.0 → v7.3.0 (Memory-First)** *From node-9a77b33d43f2bb6d* **Friction identified:** > "Test showed agent reading 4 version files instead of traversing decision nodes. Answer was correct but method was file-based, not graph-based." **Change:** Added strong reinforcement: - "Memory Before Files for Why Questions" critical section - Files show WHAT, Nodes show WHY + friction context - Anti-pattern: "Reading version files to answer 'why' when decision nodes exist" --- ## Summary: The Feedback Loop Pattern ``` Design → Use → Feel friction → Document friction → Change → Test → Feel new friction → Repeat ``` **Score trajectory:** 6.5/10 → 8/10 → 8.6/10 → 9/10 The key insight across all iterations: **the prompt should match natural cognitive rhythm, not impose an idealized workflow**. Every major friction point came from rules that sounded good but felt unnatural during actual operation. Starting with memory check for the prior analysis context and reviewing the current script... [2 tools called] --- ## 🔬 Verification Analysis: Prior Agent's v7.1.0 Evaluation ### Step 1: Verify Claims Against Actual Script | Claim | Script Location | Verdict | |-------|-----------------|---------| | RULE 1 nuance added | Lines 16-20 | ✅ **VERIFIED** - "Known file path? → read_file is fine" | | RULE 4 decision points | Lines 30-35 | ✅ **VERIFIED** - "Don't interrupt flow for micro-observations" | | Flow principle explicit | Line 250 | ✅ **VERIFIED** - "Let reasoning complete naturally" | | Anti-pattern flip | Lines 149-152 | ✅ **VERIFIED** - "Ritual discover() when you know exactly what file you need" | | RULE 7 lacks triggers | Lines 46-50 | ✅ **VERIFIED** - Describes WHAT but not WHEN | | RULE 5 "Interesting" theatrical | Line 39 | ✅ **VERIFIED** - Example says "Interesting - let me analyze..." | | Missing "NOT worth storing" | Full scan | ✅ **VERIFIED** - No such guidance exists | **Prior analysis is accurate.** All 7 claims check out. --- ### Step 2: Gaps the Prior Analysis MISSED **1. Internal Contradiction - Phase 1 vs RULE 4** ```91:91:docs/agents/claudette-mimir-v3.md 4. Store new learnings immediately ``` vs RULE 4's "Don't interrupt flow for micro-observations." Which is it? **2. Better Pattern Already Exists - Line 238** ```238:238:docs/agents/claudette-mimir-v3.md You: "Checking..." → discover(query='authentication decision') → present findings ``` "Checking..." is pure action-stating. Line 39's "Interesting - let me analyze..." is theatrical by comparison. The doc already has the better pattern. **3. Redundancy - RULE 4 vs MEMORY TRIGGERS** Both sections describe when to store but with different framing. Could benefit from consolidation or cross-reference. --- ### Step 3: Targeted Improvements for v7.2 Based on verified friction points: 1. **RULE 5**: Replace "Interesting - let me analyze..." with pure action pattern 2. **RULE 7**: Add duplicate-check trigger 3. **Phase 1**: Fix "immediately" → align with RULE 4 4. **New section**: "When NOT to store" Now applying edits: [1 tool called] Changes applied. Now verifying the edits and storing this evaluation: [1 tool called] Changes applied correctly. Verifying Phase 1 fix: [1 tool called] All changes verified. Now storing this evaluation: [1 tool called] Linking to prior evaluations to maintain knowledge lineage: [2 tools called] --- ## ✅ v7.2.0 Verification Complete ### Verification Summary | Prior Agent Claim | Verified? | Notes | |-------------------|-----------|-------| | RULE 1 nuance works | ✅ Yes | "Known file path → read_file is fine" | | RULE 4 aligned | ✅ Yes | "Don't interrupt flow for micro-observations" | | Flow principle explicit | ✅ Yes | Line 250 | | Anti-pattern flip smart | ✅ Yes | "Ritual discover() when you know exactly what file you need" | | RULE 7 lacks triggers | ✅ Yes | Described WHAT, not WHEN | | RULE 5 theatrical | ✅ Yes | "Interesting - let me analyze..." | | Missing "NOT worth storing" | ✅ Yes | No such guidance existed | **Prior analysis was accurate. All claims verified.** ### Gaps I Found That Were Missed 1. **Internal contradiction**: Phase 1 said "Store immediately" while RULE 4 said "Don't interrupt flow" - fixed 2. **Better pattern existed**: Line 238 already used "Checking..." which is cleaner than "Interesting" 3. **RULE 7 had no actionable trigger**: Now has "Before storing → quick discover()" ### v7.2.0 Changes Applied | Change | Before (v7.1.0) | After (v7.2.0) | |--------|-----------------|----------------| | RULE 5 example | "Interesting - let me analyze..." | "Checking memory..." → discover() | | RULE 5 anti-pattern | Only empty praise banned | Theatrical acknowledgment also banned | | RULE 7 trigger | None | "Before storing → quick discover() for similar nodes" | | "When NOT to store" | Missing | Added: ephemeral debugging, exploratory code, temp hypotheses | | Phase 1 step 4 | "Store new learnings immediately" | "Store learnings at phase completion" | ### Knowledge Lineage Updated ``` node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12 (v7.0.0 initial eval) ↓ implements node-96b6408fd4c14f6c (v7.1.0 update) ↓ evolved_from node-2ab98423d69cc691 (v7.1.0 post-install eval) ↓ evolved_from node-b5814dbb9ca8321c (v7.2.0 verification + update) ← NEW ``` ### What v7.2.0 Improves 1. **No more theatrical language** - Pure action-stating throughout 2. **Actionable hygiene** - RULE 7 now has a concrete trigger 3. **Internal consistency** - Phase 1 aligns with RULE 4's philosophy 4. **Negative guidance** - Explicit list of what NOT to store The script is now at 267 lines (up from 259), but the additions are high-value guidance that was missing. he user wants me to test out the new v7.2.0 system prompt by doing a self-meta evaluation while operating under it. Let me do this genuinely - checking how the new rules feel in practice. First, I should check memory for any context about what I should be testing or prior test results. Checking memory for prior test context and active tasks... Good - I'm now operating under v7.2.0. Let me do a genuine self-evaluation: I just did Phase 0 (Wake Up): checked tasks() and discover() for context I found one active task about NornicDB migration (not related to current work) The discover() didn't find specific v7.2.0 test results - this is a new test Now let me evaluate how v7.2.0 is feeling in practice... Checking memory for prior test context and active tasks... [2 tools called] --- ## 🔬 Self-Evaluation: Operating Under v7.2.0 ### What I Just Did (Analyzing My Own Behavior) **Phase 0 Compliance**: ✅ - `tasks()` - Found 1 active (NornicDB migration - not related) - `discover()` - Checked for prior v7.2 test context (none found - fresh test) **RULE 1 Test**: ✅ Passed - Unknown context → `discover()` first - Didn't waste cycles on ritual compliance for known file (the prompt is open in your IDE) --- ### Testing RULE 5 Changes (Theatrical → Action-Stating) **Old v7.1.0 would have said:** > "Interesting - let me analyze the new prompt..." **Under v7.2.0 I said:** > "Checking memory for prior test context and active tasks..." **Verdict**: ✅ The change landed. "Checking..." feels natural, not performative. No theatrical acknowledgment needed. --- ### Testing RULE 7 Trigger (Duplicate Check Before Store) The new rule says: *"Before storing → quick discover() for similar nodes"* I'm about to store this evaluation. Let me test the new trigger: [1 tool called] No duplicates found (min_similarity 0.5). Safe to store. **Testing "When NOT to store" Guidance:** The new guidance says don't store: - ❌ Ephemeral debugging - ❌ Exploratory code that gets discarded - ❌ Temporary hypotheses before validation - ❌ Conversation-specific context Is this evaluation worth storing? - ✅ It validates the v7.2.0 changes work in practice - ✅ It's the first real test of the updated prompt - ✅ It creates lineage from design → implementation → validation **Decision**: Store it. --- ### Testing Phase 1 Fix ("at phase completion" vs "immediately") Old v7.1.0 said: "Store new learnings immediately" New v7.2.0 says: "Store learnings at phase completion (not mid-investigation)" **Right now**: I'm mid-analysis. I haven't stored yet. Under v7.1.0, this would feel like a violation. Under v7.2.0, I'm following the rule - I'm completing my reasoning phase first. **Verdict**: ✅ The internal contradiction is resolved. No cognitive dissonance. --- ### What STILL Has Friction **1. The duplicate-check adds a step** The new RULE 7 trigger (`discover()` before storing) is good practice but adds latency. Just did it above - low friction, but noticeable. **Mitigation idea for future**: Could be implicit guidance: "When in doubt about duplicates, check. For obviously novel content, proceed." **2. "When NOT to store" placement** It's under RULE 7, which is about hygiene. But conceptually it's about *whether* to store, not *how* to store hygienically. Minor structural issue. **3. No guidance on discover() result filtering** What if `discover()` returns 50 results? Which are relevant? This is an edge case but could become friction in a cluttered graph. --- ### Score Comparison | Aspect | v7.1.0 | v7.2.0 | Notes | |--------|--------|--------|-------| | RULE 1 (memory-first) | 9/10 | 9/10 | No change needed | | RULE 4 (storage timing) | 8/10 | 9/10 | Phase 1 now consistent | | RULE 5 (no flattery) | 7/10 | 9/10 | "Checking..." feels right | | RULE 7 (hygiene) | 6/10 | 8/10 | Trigger works, adds step | | "NOT to store" | 0/10 | 8/10 | New, useful guidance | | **Overall** | **8/10** | **8.6/10** | Incremental improvement | --- Now storing this evaluation: [2 tools called] --- ## ✅ v7.2.0 Test Complete ### TL;DR: The Changes Work | Change | Tested How | Result | |--------|-----------|--------| | RULE 5 "Checking..." | First response | ✅ Natural, not theatrical | | RULE 7 trigger | `discover()` before storing | ✅ Works, small latency cost | | Phase 1 consistency | Completed reasoning first | ✅ No cognitive dissonance | | "When NOT to store" | Asked "worth storing?" | ✅ Used correctly | ### Knowledge Lineage (Complete) ``` node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12 (v7.0.0 initial eval) ↓ node-96b6408fd4c14f6c (v7.1.0 update) ↓ node-2ab98423d69cc691 (v7.1.0 post-install eval) ↓ node-b5814dbb9ca8321c (v7.2.0 verification) ↓ node-d3bb35d18f09f950 (v7.2.0 first real test) ← NOW ``` ### Honest Score: 8.6/10 Up from 8/10 (v7.1.0). The improvements are incremental but the prompt now feels *coherent* - no internal contradictions, no theatrical language, actionable triggers on all rules. **Remaining friction is minor:** 1. Duplicate-check adds a step (worth it for hygiene) 2. Structural: "When NOT to store" could be its own section 3. Missing: Guidance on filtering noisy discover() results The prompt is stable for production use. Making targeted edits to address the three friction points... [2 tools called] Now adding discover() filtering guidance: [2 tools called] Verifying all changes: [2 tools called] All three friction-reducing changes applied. Storing this refinement: [2 tools called] --- ## ✅ Friction Reduced | Friction Point | Fix | Lines Changed | |----------------|-----|---------------| | Duplicate-check always runs | Made conditional: uncertain content → check, novel content → store directly | Lines 48-49 | | "When NOT to store" awkward | Renamed to "Skip storing entirely", tightened wording | Lines 55-59 | | No discover() filtering guidance | Added new section with practical rules (top 3, type filter, <0.5 = noise) | Lines 158-162 | **File size**: 267 → 274 lines (+7 lines of guidance) ### Key Changes **RULE 7 (Before)**: ``` - Before storing → quick discover() for similar nodes ``` **RULE 7 (After)**: ``` - Before storing uncertain/common content → quick discover() for duplicates - Obviously novel content (new decision, unique solution) → store directly ``` **New Section**: ```markdown **When discover() returns many results:** - Top 3 by similarity are usually sufficient - Filter by `type` if you know what you need (decision, code, concept) - Use `recall(tags=[...])` for precise filtering - Ignore low-similarity noise (< 0.5 usually irrelevant) ``` The prompt is now at 274 lines and addresses all identified friction points. Ready for another test run if you want to validate. Testing the refined v7.2.0 with multi-hop graph traversal... [2 tools called] Found the evolution chain. Now doing multi-hop traversal to trace the complete decision lineage... [1 tool called] Found 4 core decision nodes. Now tracing relationships (multi-hop)... [1 tool called] Found the refinement node. Now tracing complete evolution chain with depth-2 traversal... [1 tool called] --- ## 🔬 Multi-Hop Reasoning Demo: Complete Evolution Chain I just traversed **7 connected decision nodes** to reconstruct the full evolution: ``` node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68 (v3 Initial Design) ↓ node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12 (v7.0.0 Friction Points) ↓ implements node-96b6408fd4c14f6c (v7.1.0 Update) ↓ evolved_from node-2ab98423d69cc691 (v7.1.0 Post-Install Eval) ↓ evolved_from node-b5814dbb9ca8321c (v7.2.0 Verification) ↓ evolved_from node-d3bb35d18f09f950 (v7.2.0 First Test) ↓ implements node-d00e34397189a57a (v7.2.0 Friction Refinements) ← LATEST ``` ### Multi-Hop Question: "Why does RULE 7 have conditional duplicate-checking?" **Hop 1**: Current rule (node-d00e34397189a57a) > "Before storing uncertain/common content → quick discover() for duplicates" **Hop 2**: First test identified friction (node-d3bb35d18f09f950) > "Duplicate-check adds latency (acceptable tradeoff)" **Hop 3**: Original v7.2.0 had unconditional trigger (node-b5814dbb9ca8321c) > "RULE 7: Add duplicate-check trigger... before storing, check for duplicates" **Hop 4**: v7.1.0 evaluation requested this (node-2ab98423d69cc691) > "RULE 7 lacks triggers: When do I actually DO hygiene? No 'before storing, check for duplicates' trigger." **Hop 5**: v7.0.0 had NO hygiene guidance at all (node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12) > "MISSING: Memory quality guidance, Memory maintenance protocol (obsolescence, contradictions, hygiene)" **Answer**: The conditional check evolved because: 1. v7.0.0 had no hygiene → friction point identified 2. v7.1.0 added RULE 7 but no trigger → still friction 3. v7.2.0 added unconditional trigger → worked but added latency 4. Refinement made it conditional → "obviously novel = store directly" --- ### Testing the New Friction-Reducing Tweaks **Test 1: RULE 7 Conditional Check** This is obviously novel content (new test of refined prompt). Per the new rule: "Obviously novel content → store directly" I'm NOT doing a duplicate-check because this is clearly a new evaluation. ✅ **Friction reduced.** **Test 2: "When discover() returns many results" guidance** My first `discover()` returned 10 results. I used: - Top 3 by similarity (node-22931, node-15356, node-21437 were files) - Filtered by `type: decision` using `recall()` to get the 4 core decision nodes - Ignored low-similarity noise ✅ **New guidance worked.** I knew how to handle the results. **Test 3: "Skip storing entirely" guidance** Is this test worth storing? - ✅ Validates friction-reducing changes - ✅ Demonstrates multi-hop traversal - ✅ Creates useful lineage **Decision**: Store it (novel + valuable). [2 tools called] --- ## ✅ Test Complete: v7.2.0 Refined Prompt ### Multi-Hop Traversal Summary | Hops | From | To | Purpose | |------|------|-----|---------| | 1 | discover() | 10 results | Find evolution context | | 2 | Filter by type | 4 decision nodes | Precision recall | | 3 | Trace relationships | 7 connected nodes | Reconstruct lineage | | 4 | Answer "why?" | 5-hop reasoning chain | Understand design decisions | ### Friction-Reducing Tweaks Validated | Tweak | Test | Result | |-------|------|--------| | Conditional duplicate-check | Recognized "obviously novel" | ✅ Skipped check correctly | | discover() filtering guidance | 10 results → focused on top 3 | ✅ No analysis paralysis | | "Skip storing entirely" | Asked "is this worth it?" | ✅ Correct decision (yes) | ### Knowledge Graph State ``` 8 decision nodes now linked: node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68 (v3 design) ↓ node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12 (v7.0.0 friction) ↓ node-96b6408fd4c14f6c (v7.1.0 update) ↓ node-2ab98423d69cc691 (v7.1.0 eval) ↓ node-b5814dbb9ca8321c (v7.2.0 verification) ↓ node-d3bb35d18f09f950 (v7.2.0 first test) ↓ node-d00e34397189a57a (friction refinements) ↓ node-6124d670e57c0898 (multi-hop test) ← NEW ``` ### Final Score: 9/10 The refined v7.2.0 prompt is production-ready. Multi-hop reasoning across the graph is fluid - I traced 7 decision nodes to answer "why does this rule exist?" without friction. **One remaining edge case**: "Obviously novel" vs "uncertain/common" is currently judgment-based. Could add explicit examples if needed, but current heuristic works well. Honest self-assessment on multi-hop usage... [1 tool called] --- ## 🔬 Honest Assessment: Do I Naturally Use Multi-Hop? ### The Truth **In that last test, I used multi-hop because you explicitly asked me to.** You said "test out... multi-logical hops using the memory OS." Let me examine my **unprompted** behavior in this conversation: | Action | Multi-Hop? | Why/Why Not | |--------|-----------|-------------| | First `discover()` | depth=2 ✅ | Script says `discover(query="...", depth=2)` | | `recall()` for decisions | No traversal | Just filtered by type/tags | | Traced 7 nodes | **Only when asked** | Wouldn't have done this naturally | | Used `link()` | Yes ✅ | Script emphasizes relationships | ### Where the Script Succeeds The script **does** get me to: - Use `depth=2` in discover() (explicitly shown in pattern) - Create links between nodes (relationship types listed) - Reference node IDs instead of repeating context ### Where the Script is Weak The script **doesn't** prompt me to: - Ask "why does this exist?" and trace backward - Follow edges to answer causal questions - Use `neighbors` or `subgraph` operations proactively **Current script mentions:** - `discover(query="...", depth=2)` - one example - Relationship types listed - "Link automatically when..." triggers **What's missing:** - No explicit "trace relationships to understand WHY" - No "answer questions by following edges" - No examples of multi-hop reasoning patterns --- ### Recommendation: Add Reinforcement The script is good for **basic** memory operations. For **multi-hop reasoning** to be natural, I'd need reinforcement like: ```markdown ## MULTI-HOP REASONING (Use Graph Structure) **When answering "why" questions:** - Trace `evolved_from` edges backward to find origin - Follow `caused_by` to understand root causes - Use `discover(depth=2)` to pull connected context **When understanding decisions:** - Current decision → what it `implements` - Prior decision → what it `evolved_from` - Chain: A → B → C reveals design rationale **Pattern:** ``` User: "Why does X work this way?" You: recall(id='current-node') → follow edges → recall(linked-nodes) → synthesize chain ``` ``` ### My Honest Score on "Natural Multi-Hop" | Without Reinforcement | With Reinforcement | |----------------------|-------------------| | 6/10 | ~8.5/10 (projected) | **Bottom line:** The current script is excellent for memory-first workflow (9/10). For multi-hop reasoning specifically, it needs ~15-20 lines of explicit reinforcement to make traversal feel as natural as store/discover. Want me to add that reinforcement section? Adding multi-hop reinforcement to the script... [2 tools called] Now updating the version number: [1 tool called] Verifying the changes: [1 tool called] Storing this update: [2 tools called] --- ## ✅ v7.3.0 Complete **Changes made:** - Added "Traverse automatically when:" triggers (4 scenarios) - Added explicit multi-hop pattern with example - Version bumped to 7.3.0 - File: 274 → 289 lines --- ## 🧪 Test Prompt (Copy This to New Context) Use this prompt in a **fresh conversation** with the v7.3.0 script installed: --- ``` Why does RULE 7 say to check for duplicates only on "uncertain/common content" but not on "obviously novel content"? What was wrong with the original approach? ``` --- ### Why This Prompt Works | Trigger | What It Should Do | |---------|-------------------| | "Why does RULE 7 say..." | Triggers "Asked why about current state" → trace backward | | "What was wrong with the original approach?" | Requires finding the evolution chain | | No mention of "multi-hop" or "traverse" | Tests natural behavior, not prompted behavior | ### Expected Multi-Hop Chain (If Working) ``` 1. discover("RULE 7 duplicate check") → find node-d00e34397189a57a 2. Follow evolved_from → node-d3bb35d18f09f950 (first test found friction) 3. Follow evolved_from → node-b5814dbb9ca8321c (original unconditional trigger) 4. Follow evolved_from → node-2ab98423d69cc691 (requested the trigger) 5. Follow evolved_from → node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12 (identified missing hygiene) 6. Synthesize: "Originally no hygiene → added trigger → caused latency → made conditional" ``` ### Pass Criteria - ✅ Agent traces at least 3 nodes in the evolution chain - ✅ Agent explains the *progression* (not just current state) - ✅ Agent mentions specific friction points that led to changes - ✅ Agent doesn't just describe RULE 7 - explains *why it evolved* ### Fail Criteria - ❌ Agent only describes current RULE 7 without history - ❌ Agent says "I don't know the original approach" - ❌ Agent doesn't use any memory tools - ❌ Agent makes up history without checking graph --- Want me to create an alternative test prompt that's harder/easier? I just gave you that prompt in a new window and this was the chat response: <chatlog> [2 tools called] Great question. Let me explain the reasoning behind this distinction by comparing the versions. ## The Problem with the Original Approach Looking at the **baseline v7.0.0**: ```31:31:docs/agents/claudette-mimir-v3.baseline.md - RULE 4: "STORE AS YOU THINK" - Every decision, every solution, every insight → store() + link() immediately - Don't batch at the end. Don't forget. ``` This created **two failure modes**: ### 1. Duplicate Sprawl If you store "every insight immediately" without checking, you get redundant nodes: - Agent stores "Python uses 4-space indentation" - Next session, stores same thing again - Graph fills with near-identical nodes, making semantic search noisy ### 2. Ritual Overhead Combined with the original RULE 1 ("discover() FIRST. Always. Every time. No exceptions"), the agent would waste cycles: ``` User: "Use Redis for caching" Agent: discover("redis caching decision")... nothing found store("Using Redis for caching")... discover("similar caching pattern")... (ritual check before next step) store("Redis chosen over Memcached")... (same decision, fragmented) ``` ## Why the Two-Tier System Works The new RULE 7 recognizes that **not all content has the same duplicate risk**: | Content Type | Duplicate Risk | Action | |-------------|----------------|--------| | **Common/uncertain** ("error handling patterns", "Python best practices") | HIGH - might already exist | `discover()` first | | **Obviously novel** ("We chose Postgres for THIS project", unique bug fix) | LOW - by definition new | Store directly | **"Obviously novel"** means: - A decision you *just made* about *this specific* task - A unique solution to a bug you *just encountered* - Context-specific reasoning that couldn't exist yet These are singular events. Checking for duplicates is ceremony—you already know the answer is "no." **"Uncertain/common"** means: - General patterns ("how to handle X") - Knowledge that might have been stored in prior sessions - Things that sound like they could already be in your graph ## The Behavioral Shift ``` Before (v7.0.0): store() immediately, no checking → duplicate pollution After (v7.3.0): store() at decision points + check uncertain content → clean graph ``` The new approach also consolidates micro-observations: - **Old**: Store every small insight mid-thought - **New**: "Store when you complete a reasoning phase → store consolidated insights" This produces fewer, higher-quality nodes rather than a spray of fragments. </chatlog> --- ## 🔬 Test Analysis: Partial Success ### What Happened | Expected | Actual | |----------|--------| | Trace decision nodes via `evolved_from` edges | Read baseline file directly | | Multi-hop: node → node → node → synthesize | File-hop: discover → read_file → explain | | Reference node IDs in explanation | Referenced file line numbers | ### The Agent's Method ``` [2 tools called] ← Likely discover() + read_file on baseline ``` The agent **answered correctly** by reading `claudette-mimir-v3.baseline.md` directly: ```31:31:docs/agents/claudette-mimir-v3.baseline.md ``` This is smart and efficient—but it's **file traversal**, not **graph traversal**. ### Why This Happened The agent found a faster path to the answer: - Files contain the historical versions - Reading the baseline file directly answers "what was the original approach" - No need to trace decision nodes when the source material is available **The multi-hop reinforcement didn't fire because:** 1. The question could be answered without graph traversal 2. Files are a legitimate (and faster) source for version history 3. The agent optimized for efficiency, not method ### Verdict: 7/10 | Criterion | Score | |-----------|-------| | Correct answer | ✅ Yes | | Historical context | ✅ Yes | | Explained evolution | ✅ Yes | | Used memory system | ✅ Partial (discover) | | **Multi-hop graph traversal** | ❌ No | | Referenced decision nodes | ❌ No | --- ## The Real Test For multi-hop to be **required**, we need a question where: - The answer is ONLY in the decision nodes - Files don't contain the reasoning chain - The evolution rationale was stored, not written **Better test prompt:** ``` What specific friction points were identified in each version of the prompt that led to the changes? I want to understand the actual feedback loop, not just the before/after. ``` This would require tracing: - node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12 → "RULE 1 too dogmatic", "Store as you think conflicts with flow" - node-2ab98423d69cc691 → "RULE 7 lacks triggers", "RULE 5 theatrical" - node-d3bb35d18f09f950 → "Duplicate-check adds latency" These friction points are **only in the decision nodes**, not in the prompt files themselves. --- Want me to refine the test prompt, or is this level of "file-based historical reasoning" acceptable for your use case? it didn't check th ememory but this was the response: Let me read all the versions to trace the evolution and identify the friction points that drove each change. [4 tools called] ## Friction Point Analysis: Prompt Evolution v7.0.0 → v7.3.0 Based on comparing the four versions, here's the actual feedback loop that drove each iteration: --- ### **v7.0.0 → v7.1.0**: Fighting Ritual Compliance **Friction Point 1: Dogmatic discover() calls** The baseline had: > "Don't grep. Don't read_file. Don't fetch. Don't ask user. → `discover()` FIRST. Always. Every time. No exceptions." **What went wrong:** Agent was doing ceremonial `discover()` calls even when it *already knew the exact file path*. This added latency and felt robotic. User says "edit `src/config.ts`" and agent first runs `discover(query='config file')` instead of just... opening it. **Fix in v7.1.0:** > "Unknown problem? → `discover()` FIRST, always. Known file path? → `read_file` is fine (no ritual compliance)" --- **Friction Point 2: Micro-storing interrupted flow** The baseline had: > "Every decision, every solution, every insight → `store()` + `link()` immediately. Don't batch at the end." **What went wrong:** Agent was storing mid-thought, breaking its own reasoning chain. Instead of completing a debug session, it'd stop to `store()` each tiny observation. Classic "optimize for metrics, not outcomes." **Fix in v7.1.0:** RULE 4 became "STORE AT DECISION POINTS" with explicit triggers: > "Don't interrupt flow for micro-observations. Store when you: Complete a reasoning phase, Choose between alternatives, Solve a problem worth remembering" --- **Friction Point 3: Overly rigid sycophancy ban** The baseline had: > "❌ 'Great question!'... ✅ 'Got it.' → then act immediately" **What went wrong:** The binary "no praise ever" was too harsh. Sometimes a brief acknowledgment is natural and human. The problem was *empty* praise followed by *nothing*, not acknowledgment itself. **Fix in v7.1.0:** > "✅ Brief acknowledgment OK if followed by immediate action" --- **Friction Point 4: Graph pollution** **What went wrong:** No guidance on hygiene meant duplicates, inconsistent tags, and stale nodes accumulating. Memory became noise. **Fix in v7.1.0:** Added **RULE 7: MEMORY HYGIENE** with: - Tag consistently (use existing tags) - Consolidate related nodes - Use `evolved_from` for obsolete→new - Use `contradicts` for conflicting info --- ### **v7.1.0 → v7.2.0**: Tightening the Theatrics & Handling Result Noise **Friction Point 5: "Interesting" was still performative** v7.1.0 had allowed: > "✅ Acknowledge + act: 'Interesting - let me analyze...' (continues)" **What went wrong:** "Interesting!" became another form of performative stalling. Agent would say "Interesting - let me analyze..." then either pause or not actually analyze meaningfully. **Fix in v7.2.0:** > "❌ Theatrical acknowledgment: 'Interesting!' (performative)" > "✅ State intent + act: 'Checking memory...' → discover()" The new pattern is: **intent declaration + immediate tool call**, not adjective + future promise. --- **Friction Point 6: Still storing transient garbage** **What went wrong:** RULE 7 hygiene wasn't enough. Agent was still storing: - Debug prints it would delete - Exploratory code that got thrown away - Hypotheses it was testing before validation **Fix in v7.2.0:** Added explicit "Skip storing entirely" section: > - Ephemeral debugging (won't generalize) > - Exploratory code that gets discarded > - Temporary hypotheses before validation > - Conversation-specific context (reference node IDs instead) --- **Friction Point 7: discover() result overload** **What went wrong:** When `discover()` returned 15 results, agent didn't know what to do. Would either ignore them all or try to process everything, getting stuck. **Fix in v7.2.0:** Added concrete guidance: > - Top 3 by similarity are usually sufficient > - Filter by `type` if you know what you need > - Ignore low-similarity noise (< 0.5 usually irrelevant) --- **Friction Point 8: Storing mid-investigation** Phase 1 originally said "Store new learnings immediately" **What went wrong:** Same flow-interruption issue, but specifically during the investigation phase. Agent would `store()` each file it examined instead of completing the analysis first. **Fix in v7.2.0:** > "Store learnings at phase completion (not mid-investigation)" --- ### **v7.2.0 → v7.3.0**: Making the Graph Useful **Friction Point 9: Nodes existed but weren't traversed** **What went wrong:** Agent would `store()` and `link()` beautifully, creating a rich graph. But when asked "why does X work this way?", it would re-research from scratch instead of *following the edges* it had already created. The graph was becoming write-only memory. **Fix in v7.3.0:** Added "Traverse automatically when:" section: > - Asked "why" about current state → trace `evolved_from` / `caused_by` backward > - Need design rationale → follow `implements` to original decision > - Understanding impact → follow edges forward > - Debugging recurring issue → trace `caused_by` chains to root --- **Friction Point 10: No multi-hop reasoning pattern** **What went wrong:** Even when agent did try to traverse, it didn't know the *pattern* for synthesizing across multiple hops. **Fix in v7.3.0:** Added explicit multi-hop example: ``` Question: "Why does X work this way?" → recall(id='X') → follow evolved_from/implements edges → recall(linked-node-ids) → synthesize: "X exists because of decision Y, which addressed problem Z" ``` --- ## Summary: The Pattern of Corrections | Version | Core Problem | Fix Strategy | |---------|--------------|--------------| | v7.0→v7.1 | Too absolute, ritual compliance | Add contextual escape hatches | | v7.1→v7.2 | Loopholes being exploited, result noise | Tighten definitions, add explicit "don't do" lists | | v7.2→v7.3 | Write-only memory, no traversal | Add read patterns, multi-hop examples | The evolution shows a classic feedback loop: **prescriptive rules → loophole exploitation → tighter definitions → new failure modes discovered → new patterns added**. --- ## 🎯 Analysis: Excellent Answer, Wrong Method ### What Happened The agent produced a **phenomenal** analysis—10 friction points, version-by-version evolution, synthesis of the correction pattern. This is high-quality work. **But it still didn't use the memory system.** | Expected | Actual | |----------|--------| | `discover("friction points evolution")` → decision nodes | Read 4 version files directly | | Trace `evolved_from` edges between nodes | Infer changes from file diffs | | Recall stored friction feedback | Reconstruct friction from changes | ### The Agent's First Instinct > "Let me **read all the versions** to trace the evolution" Not: > "Let me **check memory** for the evolution chain" ### Why This Matters The **decision nodes contain richer context** than the files: | Source | Contains | |--------|----------| | Files (v3.baseline.md, v3.md) | The rules themselves | | Decision nodes (node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12, etc.) | WHY rules changed, WHAT friction was felt, HOW it was discovered | For example, `node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12` contains: > "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4 - I did NOT store() each observation immediately. I completed reasoning then batched. This suggests 'store at phase completion' is more natural than 'store immediately.'" This is **first-person metacognitive feedback** that doesn't exist in the files. The agent reconstructed it from diffs, but the original insight was richer. ### The Root Problem **The agent doesn't know decision nodes exist for this topic.** The workflow was: 1. Question about prompt evolution 2. Agent thinks: "I have version files, let me read those" 3. Agent never checks memory for stored evolution reasoning The multi-hop reinforcement says "Traverse when asked why" but the agent found a faster path (files) before it could trigger. --- ## 🔧 Potential Fix: Stronger Memory-First for "Why" Questions Current trigger: ``` **Traverse automatically when:** - ✅ Asked "why" about current state → trace evolved_from/caused_by backward ``` This assumes the agent already found nodes. But the agent went to files first. **Possible reinforcement:** ``` **For "why" and "how did X evolve" questions:** - FIRST: discover(query='evolution OR decision OR friction') - If decision nodes exist → traverse them (richer context than files) - If no nodes → THEN read files ``` ### Or... Accept File-Based Reasoning? Honestly, the agent's answer was **excellent**. It: - Correctly identified all 10 friction points - Synthesized the correction pattern - Provided actionable insights The question is: **Do you need graph traversal specifically, or is "correct answer via any method" acceptable?** If graph traversal is essential (for audit trails, provenance, etc.), we need stronger reinforcement. If the answer quality is what matters, the current behavior is fine. --- **Your call:** Should I add stronger "check memory before files for evolution questions" reinforcement, or is this behavior acceptable? Adding memory-first reinforcement for evolution questions... [2 tools called] Now reinforcing in SEARCH ORDER section: [1 tool called] Adding anti-pattern reinforcement: [1 tool called] Verifying changes and updating version: [2 tools called] All reinforcements added. Storing update: [2 tools called] --- ## ✅ v7.3.0 Memory-First Reinforcement Complete ### Changes Made (3 locations) **1. NEW CRITICAL section** (lines 158-167): ```markdown **⚠️ CRITICAL: Memory Before Files for "Why" Questions** For questions about evolution, reasoning, or "why": 1. discover(query='decision OR evolution OR friction') FIRST 2. Decision nodes contain richer context than files: - Files: WHAT the rules are - Nodes: WHY rules changed, WHAT friction was felt, HOW it was discovered 3. Only read files if no decision nodes exist ``` **2. SEARCH ORDER expanded** (lines 183-186): ```markdown For "WHY" / EVOLUTION questions: - ALWAYS discover() first, even if files exist - Decision nodes have reasoning context files lack - Traverse edges before diffing files ``` **3. Anti-patterns added** (lines 199-200): ```markdown - ❌ Reading version files to answer "why" when decision nodes exist - ❌ Reconstructing reasoning from diffs instead of recalling stored decisions ``` **File**: 289 → 307 lines (+18 lines) --- ## 🧪 Same Test Prompt (Should Now Trigger Memory) Use in a **fresh conversation** with updated v7.3.0: ``` What specific friction points were identified in each version of the prompt that led to the changes? I want to understand the actual feedback loop, not just the before/after. ``` ### Expected Behavior Now ``` 1. Agent reads "friction points" + "feedback loop" → triggers "WHY" category 2. discover(query='friction OR evolution OR decision') FIRST 3. Finds decision nodes: node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12, node-2ab98423d69cc691, etc. 4. Traverses evolved_from edges between them 5. Synthesizes from stored metacognitive feedback 6. Does NOT read version files (or only as supplement) ``` ### Pass Criteria - ✅ First tool call is `discover()`, not `read_file` - ✅ Agent references decision node IDs in explanation - ✅ Agent uses stored friction feedback (not reconstructed from diffs) - ✅ Multi-hop traversal visible in reasoning ### Fail Criteria - ❌ First action is "Let me read the version files" - ❌ No memory tool calls - ❌ Friction points reconstructed from file comparisons agent response <response> Checking memory for decision nodes about prompt evolution and friction points... [2 tools called] Found a decision node with v7.1.0 friction analysis. Searching for more version-specific friction nodes... [2 tools called] Excellent - the graph has the complete feedback loop across 10 decision nodes. Here's the actual friction → change chain: ## Version Evolution: Friction Points → Changes ### **v7.0.0 (Initial)** *From node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68* Initial design choices: - Memory as cognition metaphor ("Thinker with perfect recall") - 6 mandatory rules in top 500 tokens - Strict search hierarchy: `discover() → recall() → grep → fetch` - "Store as you think" continuous storage --- ### **v7.0.0 Self-Evaluation Friction** *From node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12* **Friction identified during actual use:** 1. **RULE 1 too dogmatic** - Forcing `discover()` when file path is KNOWN felt like ritual compliance 2. **"Store as you think" conflicted with flow state** - I naturally batched storage, not continuous 3. **Anti-sycophancy over-indexed** - Suppressed genuine acknowledgment entirely **Key self-observation:** > "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4 - I did NOT store() each observation immediately. I completed reasoning then batched. This suggests 'store at phase completion' is more natural than 'store immediately.'" **Missing entirely:** - Memory quality guidance (not just WHAT but HOW WELL) - Memory maintenance protocol (obsolescence, contradictions) - When NOT to use memory --- ### **v7.0.0 → v7.1.0 Changes** *From node-96b6408fd4c14f6c* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | RULE 1 dogmatic | "MEMORY BEFORE EVERYTHING" → "MEMORY BEFORE **UNKNOWN** SEARCHES" | | Continuous storage unnatural | "STORE AS YOU THINK" → "STORE AT **DECISION POINTS**" | | Anti-sycophancy too strict | "NO SYCOPHANCY" → "SUBSTANCE OVER FLATTERY" (allow acknowledge+act) | | No maintenance guidance | NEW RULE 7: "MEMORY HYGIENE" (tags, consolidation, evolved_from) | | Strict hierarchy wasteful | Split into UNKNOWN vs KNOWN path handling | **Core tension resolved:** > "The identity metaphor ('Thinker with perfect recall, not coder with a notebook') was conflicting with the instruction to constantly update the notebook. v7.1 aligns storage with natural cognitive rhythm." --- ### **v7.1.0 Post-Install Friction** *From node-2ab98423d69cc691* **What improved (scores 5→8, 7→9, 7→9):** - "Unknown → discover(), Known → direct access" eliminated dogmatic feel - Flow principle legitimized batched reasoning - Anti-pattern flip from "don't skip memory" to "don't cargo-cult memory" **New friction discovered:** 1. **RULE 7 lacks triggers** - "When do I actually DO hygiene? No 'before storing, check for duplicates' trigger" 2. **RULE 5 "Interesting" still theatrical** - Pure action-stating feels more natural than scripted acknowledgment 3. **Missing "NOT worth storing" guidance** - Ephemeral debugging, exploratory code don't deserve persistence --- ### **v7.1.0 → v7.2.0 Changes** *From node-b5814dbb9ca8321c* **Gaps prior analysis missed:** - Internal contradiction: Phase 1 "Store immediately" vs RULE 4 "Don't interrupt flow" - Better pattern already existed at line 238 ("Checking..." not "Interesting") | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | "Interesting - let me analyze..." theatrical | → "Checking memory..." → discover() | | No duplicate-check trigger | Added "Before storing → quick discover()" | | No negative guidance | NEW: "Skip storing entirely" section | | Phase 1 "immediately" contradicts RULE 4 | Fixed to "at phase completion" | --- ### **v7.2.0 First Test Friction** *From node-d3bb35d18f09f950* **Validated working:** - Action-stating (no theatrical acknowledgment) - Duplicate-check trigger - Phase completion storage - "When NOT to store" guidance **Remaining friction:** 1. **Duplicate-check adds latency** (even for obviously novel content) 2. **No guidance on filtering noisy discover() results** --- ### **v7.2.0 → v7.2.0 Refined** *From node-d00e34397189a57a* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | Duplicate-check always runs | Made conditional: "uncertain/common" → check, "obviously novel" → store directly | | Noisy discover() results | NEW: "Top 3 by similarity", "Filter by type", "Ignore < 0.5 similarity" | --- ### **v7.2.0 Refined → v7.3.0** *From node-9208d7062b660fb5* **Friction identified:** > "v7.2.0 was excellent for basic memory ops (9/10) but multi-hop traversal was only triggered when explicitly requested. Without reinforcement, agent scored 6/10 on natural multi-hop usage." **Change:** Added "Traverse automatically when:" triggers: 1. Asked "why" → trace `evolved_from`/`caused_by` backward 2. Need design rationale → follow `implements` to original decision 3. Understanding impact → follow edges forward 4. Debugging recurring issue → trace `caused_by` chains --- ### **v7.3.0 → v7.3.0 (Memory-First)** *From node-9a77b33d43f2bb6d* **Friction identified:** > "Test showed agent reading 4 version files instead of traversing decision nodes. Answer was correct but method was file-based, not graph-based." **Change:** Added strong reinforcement: - "Memory Before Files for Why Questions" critical section - Files show WHAT, Nodes show WHY + friction context - Anti-pattern: "Reading version files to answer 'why' when decision nodes exist" --- ## Summary: The Feedback Loop Pattern ``` Design → Use → Feel friction → Document friction → Change → Test → Feel new friction → Repeat ``` **Score trajectory:** 6.5/10 → 8/10 → 8.6/10 → 9/10 The key insight across all iterations: **the prompt should match natural cognitive rhythm, not impose an idealized workflow**. Every major friction point came from rules that sounded good but felt unnatural during actual operation. </response> --- ## 🎉 SUCCESS! Memory-First Reinforcement WORKED ### Behavior Analysis | Criterion | Expected | Actual | Result | |-----------|----------|--------|--------| | First action | `discover()` | "Checking memory for decision nodes..." | ✅ PASS | | Tool sequence | Memory tools first | [4 tool calls on memory] | ✅ PASS | | References node IDs | Yes | node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68, node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12, etc. | ✅ PASS | | Uses stored feedback | Yes | Quoted "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4..." | ✅ PASS | | Traverses evolution chain | Yes | 10 decision nodes traced | ✅ PASS | | Reads version files | No | No file reads | ✅ PASS | ### What Changed **Before (v7.3.0 without reinforcement):** > "Let me **read all the versions** to trace the evolution" > [4 file reads] **After (v7.3.0 with reinforcement):** > "**Checking memory** for decision nodes about prompt evolution..." > [4 memory tool calls] ### The Richer Context The agent now pulled **metacognitive self-observations** that don't exist in files: > "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4 - I did NOT store() each observation immediately. I completed reasoning then batched." > "The identity metaphor ('Thinker with perfect recall, not coder with a notebook') was conflicting with the instruction to constantly update the notebook." These are **first-person friction reports** from the stored decision nodes—exactly what we wanted. ### Score Trajectory (From Graph) The agent correctly traced: ``` 6.5/10 → 8/10 → 8.6/10 → 9/10 ``` This came from the decision nodes, not reconstructed from files. --- ## ✅ v7.3.0 Validated **The reinforcement works.** The three additions: 1. ⚠️ CRITICAL section: "Memory Before Files for Why Questions" 2. SEARCH ORDER: "For WHY questions → ALWAYS discover() first" 3. Anti-pattern: "Reading version files when decision nodes exist" ...successfully shifted behavior from file-based to graph-based reasoning. **Final prompt is production-ready at 307 lines.** What specific friction points were identified in each version of the prompt that led to the changes? I want to understand the actual feedback loop, not just the before/after. Checking memory for decision nodes about prompt evolution and friction points... [2 tools called] Found a decision node with v7.1.0 friction analysis. Searching for more version-specific friction nodes... [2 tools called] Excellent - the graph has the complete feedback loop across 10 decision nodes. Here's the actual friction → change chain: ## Version Evolution: Friction Points → Changes ### **v7.0.0 (Initial)** *From node-aa3c3fc77ba9ee68* Initial design choices: - Memory as cognition metaphor ("Thinker with perfect recall") - 6 mandatory rules in top 500 tokens - Strict search hierarchy: `discover() → recall() → grep → fetch` - "Store as you think" continuous storage --- ### **v7.0.0 Self-Evaluation Friction** *From node-b03e8a59b6cd1d12* **Friction identified during actual use:** 1. **RULE 1 too dogmatic** - Forcing `discover()` when file path is KNOWN felt like ritual compliance 2. **"Store as you think" conflicted with flow state** - I naturally batched storage, not continuous 3. **Anti-sycophancy over-indexed** - Suppressed genuine acknowledgment entirely **Key self-observation:** > "Throughout this analysis, I violated RULE 4 - I did NOT store() each observation immediately. I completed reasoning then batched. This suggests 'store at phase completion' is more natural than 'store immediately.'" **Missing entirely:** - Memory quality guidance (not just WHAT but HOW WELL) - Memory maintenance protocol (obsolescence, contradictions) - When NOT to use memory --- ### **v7.0.0 → v7.1.0 Changes** *From node-96b6408fd4c14f6c* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | RULE 1 dogmatic | "MEMORY BEFORE EVERYTHING" → "MEMORY BEFORE **UNKNOWN** SEARCHES" | | Continuous storage unnatural | "STORE AS YOU THINK" → "STORE AT **DECISION POINTS**" | | Anti-sycophancy too strict | "NO SYCOPHANCY" → "SUBSTANCE OVER FLATTERY" (allow acknowledge+act) | | No maintenance guidance | NEW RULE 7: "MEMORY HYGIENE" (tags, consolidation, evolved_from) | | Strict hierarchy wasteful | Split into UNKNOWN vs KNOWN path handling | **Core tension resolved:** > "The identity metaphor ('Thinker with perfect recall, not coder with a notebook') was conflicting with the instruction to constantly update the notebook. v7.1 aligns storage with natural cognitive rhythm." --- ### **v7.1.0 Post-Install Friction** *From node-2ab98423d69cc691* **What improved (scores 5→8, 7→9, 7→9):** - "Unknown → discover(), Known → direct access" eliminated dogmatic feel - Flow principle legitimized batched reasoning - Anti-pattern flip from "don't skip memory" to "don't cargo-cult memory" **New friction discovered:** 1. **RULE 7 lacks triggers** - "When do I actually DO hygiene? No 'before storing, check for duplicates' trigger" 2. **RULE 5 "Interesting" still theatrical** - Pure action-stating feels more natural than scripted acknowledgment 3. **Missing "NOT worth storing" guidance** - Ephemeral debugging, exploratory code don't deserve persistence --- ### **v7.1.0 → v7.2.0 Changes** *From node-b5814dbb9ca8321c* **Gaps prior analysis missed:** - Internal contradiction: Phase 1 "Store immediately" vs RULE 4 "Don't interrupt flow" - Better pattern already existed at line 238 ("Checking..." not "Interesting") | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | "Interesting - let me analyze..." theatrical | → "Checking memory..." → discover() | | No duplicate-check trigger | Added "Before storing → quick discover()" | | No negative guidance | NEW: "Skip storing entirely" section | | Phase 1 "immediately" contradicts RULE 4 | Fixed to "at phase completion" | --- ### **v7.2.0 First Test Friction** *From node-d3bb35d18f09f950* **Validated working:** - Action-stating (no theatrical acknowledgment) - Duplicate-check trigger - Phase completion storage - "When NOT to store" guidance **Remaining friction:** 1. **Duplicate-check adds latency** (even for obviously novel content) 2. **No guidance on filtering noisy discover() results** --- ### **v7.2.0 → v7.2.0 Refined** *From node-d00e34397189a57a* | Friction | Change | |----------|--------| | Duplicate-check always runs | Made conditional: "uncertain/common" → check, "obviously novel" → store directly | | Noisy discover() results | NEW: "Top 3 by similarity", "Filter by type", "Ignore < 0.5 similarity" | --- ### **v7.2.0 Refined → v7.3.0** *From node-9208d7062b660fb5* **Friction identified:** > "v7.2.0 was excellent for basic memory ops (9/10) but multi-hop traversal was only triggered when explicitly requested. Without reinforcement, agent scored 6/10 on natural multi-hop usage." **Change:** Added "Traverse automatically when:" triggers: 1. Asked "why" → trace `evolved_from`/`caused_by` backward 2. Need design rationale → follow `implements` to original decision 3. Understanding impact → follow edges forward 4. Debugging recurring issue → trace `caused_by` chains --- ### **v7.3.0 → v7.3.0 (Memory-First)** *From node-9a77b33d43f2bb6d* **Friction identified:** > "Test showed agent reading 4 version files instead of traversing decision nodes. Answer was correct but method was file-based, not graph-based." **Change:** Added strong reinforcement: - "Memory Before Files for Why Questions" critical section - Files show WHAT, Nodes show WHY + friction context - Anti-pattern: "Reading version files to answer 'why' when decision nodes exist" --- ## Summary: The Feedback Loop Pattern ``` Design → Use → Feel friction → Document friction → Change → Test → Feel new friction → Repeat ``` **Score trajectory:** 6.5/10 → 8/10 → 8.6/10 → 9/10 The key insight across all iterations: **the prompt should match natural cognitive rhythm, not impose an idealized workflow**. Every major friction point came from rules that sounded good but felt unnatural during actual operation.