Remember

Review memory-like artifacts and propose what should be kept, promoted, merged, or removed. This keeps guidance accurate as the project evolves.

Use when

• Memory instructions are drifting or conflicting.
• Team wants to clean stale guidance from old sessions.
• You need to promote stable patterns into durable docs.

Do not use when

• There is no meaningful memory/context to review.
• User only needs a one-off answer (no memory maintenance).
• You are asked to auto-edit memory layers without confirmation.

Input contract

• review_scope (optional): workspace_docs, session_logs, both (default both).
• apply_changes (optional): default false (proposal mode first).
• priority (optional): conflicts, duplicates, promotions, all (default all).
• target_files (optional): explicit files to inspect first.

Parsing rules (priority order)

1. Use explicit structured args when provided.
2. Else infer from user phrasing:
   • "clean memory", "dedupe instructions" -> priority=duplicates,conflicts
   • "promote stable conventions" -> priority=promotions
   • "just review, don't edit" -> apply_changes=false
3. Defaults:
   • review_scope=both
   • apply_changes=false
   • priority=all

Canonical workflow

1. Collect sources
   • Workspace memory docs (for example: IDENTITY.md, SOUL.md, MEMORY.md, USER.md, AGENTS.md) and session evidence when available.
2. Classify entries
   • durable convention, temporary note, duplicate, outdated, conflicting, ambiguous.
3. Generate proposals
   • promotions (move to durable location), cleanup (remove/merge duplicates), conflict resolution (which version wins + rationale).
4. Present grouped report
   • Promotions, Cleanup, Conflicts, Ambiguous, No action.
5. Apply only with approval
   • If apply_changes=true, execute approved changes and re-validate consistency.

Guardrails

• Default to proposal mode; do not mutate without explicit approval.
• Never delete content that has unresolved ambiguity.
• Prefer reversible edits and clear provenance notes.
• Keep sensitive values out of memory docs; redact before proposing promotion.
• State uncertainty explicitly when evidence is insufficient.

Output format

Always return:

• status: proposed | applied | needs_user_input
• review_scope: effective scope
• promotions: list with destination + rationale
• cleanup: duplicates/outdated removals or merges
• conflicts: contradiction list + recommended resolution
• ambiguous: items requiring user decision
• next_action: required unless status=applied

Example

• review_scope="both" priority="all" apply_changes=false