David/dotfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

chore(memory): Basic Memory trial begins — sync normalization baseline (283 files)

Browse Source 
Basic Memory v0.21.6 first sync over the live memory dir (steward-authorized
live-dir trial, Option A 2026-06-06): adds permalink: to frontmatter, refolds
long YAML description lines, strips final newlines. Bodies untouched —
verified via full diff classification. From this commit forward, any diff in
claude/memory shows only what Basic Memory or the session writes.

Trial design: MemPalace untouched as incumbent; git status check on this dir
at every wrap; end-of-day evaluation (recall quality, sync robustness,
rebuild-from-files, malformed-file behavior).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
David F Glidden
2026-06-06 09:52:17 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 4.8
parent 161fad7ae2
commit 3f9a89b00c
283 changed files with 2055 additions and 620 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
claude/memory/feedback-rank-on-fields-you-actually-write.md
+7 -3
View File
@@ -1,10 +1,14 @@
---
name: feedback-rank-on-fields-you-actually-write
description: A component that ranks/selects by an evaluative field nothing populates silently degrades to a trivial order while claiming to rank — verify scoring fields end-to-end; prefer signals you already capture. For BMF/CapableMind/studium-engine tool-building.
metadata:
description: A component that ranks/selects by an evaluative field nothing populates
silently degrades to a trivial order while claiming to rank — verify scoring fields
end-to-end; prefer signals you already capture. For BMF/CapableMind/studium-engine
tool-building.
metadata:
node_type: memory
type: feedback
originSessionId: 96ac9e09-7d3d-4ce3-a9cb-5234078a2a4e
permalink: claude-memory/feedback-rank-on-fields-you-actually-write
---
When a component ranks or selects by an *evaluative* field (importance, weight, relevance, confidence, salience), verify that some ingestion path actually **writes** that field end-to-end — not just that the consumer **reads** it.
@@ -17,4 +21,4 @@ Concrete case that surfaced this (2026-05-26, MemPalace): `layers.py` L1 wake-up
- For any ranking/selection feature, **trace the scoring field write→read**. If no path writes it, the ranking is fiction — make it raise, log a degradation, or fall back to a signal you have.
- **Prefer signals you already capture** (recency/`filed_at`, frequency, structural position) over signals that need a deferred scoring pass (LLM-assigned importance). Either build the scoring path *deliberately and end-to-end*, or rank on cheap structural data — never read a field you don't write.
- **Record structural/provenance metadata always; record evaluative metadata only when a path genuinely assigns it.** Honest degradation: a system must report its own limits, including "I cannot rank by importance because nothing scored these."
- Treat docstrings/comments that promise ranking behavior as claims to verify, not documentation to trust. Relates to [[feedback-load-bearing-not-by-immediate-weight]] and the live-state / verify-before-assert discipline.
- Treat docstrings/comments that promise ranking behavior as claims to verify, not documentation to trust. Relates to [[feedback-load-bearing-not-by-immediate-weight]] and the live-state / verify-before-assert discipline.