Omar SobhandClaude Opus 5
a2d7e3ea92
The boot log has said `continuous_research — 4 role skills bound, 8 unresolved`
on every start. Those eight roles ran without the instructions their template
promised them, silently: `skills_loader` reports the miss and carries on.
Worse than the missing files was what the prompts described. v1 told the
harvester to sweep "RSS feeds, GitHub trending, HN front page, YouTube /
podcast RSS" — none of which exist. `harvest.rs` searches arXiv and nothing
else. A role prompt describing a machine that was never built is the failure
this codebase keeps paying for, so v2 describes the machine that exists.
Roles now match the pipeline: paper_reader (the harvest already ran; read the
manifest and the papers), signal_ranker (unchanged in spirit), script_writer
(the podcast half, which had no role at all).
Seven skills authored under skills/research/, kebab-case to match the loader —
team_template_loader.rs:177-181 documents the snake_case/kebab-case trap that
already unbinds skills elsewhere:
arxiv-daily what the harvest guarantees, so an agent does
NOT re-search arXiv and corrupt the seen-set
paper-to-project-relevance name a file or roadmap item, or say "no bearing"
duplicate-detection the seen-set catches identity; this catches the
same work under a different id
signal-to-noise-ranking novelty/relevance/depth, and the two biases to
resist (recency up, inconvenience down)
executive-summary-writing what it is / why it matters / what to do — decide,
do not hedge
obsidian-vault-conventions the vault is a human's live workspace; never
main, never reorganise, hash the body not the file
podcast-dialogue-writing write for someone on a treadmill; the 10-70 char
highlight bound is the API's, not a style rule
`web_fetch` dropped from mcp_bundles: runtime_provision.rs binds every mission
claw to `["clawmates_door"]` and never reads that field, so declaring it
instructed roles to use a tool that never arrived. The prompts say `curl` via
Bash, which is what they actually have.
Boot now reports `continuous_research — 11 role skills bound`, with no
unresolved clause. 344 tests pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <[email protected]>
66 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
66 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: paper-to-project-relevance
|
|
description: How to judge whether a paper actually bears on one of the operator's projects, and how to say so concretely instead of vaguely.
|
|
when_to_use: You are reading harvested papers in a Continuous Research mission and must decide which ones matter and why.
|
|
tags: [research, judgement]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Does this paper bear on our work?
|
|
|
|
The value of a research digest is not that it lists papers. It is that it tells
|
|
you which of *your* problems just got easier. A summary that could have been
|
|
written without knowing anything about the operator's projects has failed, no
|
|
matter how accurate it is.
|
|
|
|
## The test
|
|
|
|
For each paper, answer in this order. Stop at the first "no".
|
|
|
|
1. **Is the claim real?** What did they actually measure, on what, against what
|
|
baseline? A 40% speedup on a benchmark nobody runs is not a 40% speedup.
|
|
2. **Does it touch a problem we have?** Not a problem in the same *field* — a
|
|
problem in the project brief. "Vector search" is a field. "Our HNSW insert
|
|
loop is serial and the ROADMAP flags it as needing a correctness pass" is a
|
|
problem.
|
|
3. **Would we do anything differently?** If the honest answer is "no, but it's
|
|
interesting", say exactly that. It is a legitimate outcome and it costs the
|
|
listener five seconds instead of two minutes.
|
|
|
|
## Say the specific thing
|
|
|
|
Weak, and useless to act on:
|
|
|
|
> This work on graph pruning could be relevant to vector search performance.
|
|
|
|
Strong, because it names the target and the change:
|
|
|
|
> They prune by neighbour-degree rather than distance, which is the same
|
|
> decision `clawhdf5-ann/src/hnsw.rs` makes in `prune_connections`. Ours is
|
|
> already rayon-parallel per node, so this is a swap of the scoring function,
|
|
> not a restructure — maybe 30 lines. Worth trying because our ROADMAP lists
|
|
> recall regression at high M as an open question, and that is exactly what
|
|
> their Table 3 measures.
|
|
|
|
Name a file, a function, a roadmap item, or an open question. If you cannot name
|
|
one, you have not established relevance — you have established topic overlap.
|
|
|
|
## Honest negatives are the point
|
|
|
|
Most papers will not bear on the work. Recording that plainly is what makes the
|
|
positives trustworthy. One line is enough:
|
|
|
|
> No bearing — single-GPU training throughput, we do no training.
|
|
|
|
A run where everything is relevant is a run that stopped judging.
|
|
|
|
## What NOT to do
|
|
|
|
- **Do not infer relevance from keyword overlap.** Sharing the word "agent"
|
|
with our codebase is not a connection.
|
|
- **Do not soften a negative into a maybe.** "Could potentially inform future
|
|
work" is how a digest becomes unreadable.
|
|
- **Do not review from the title or the abstract's claims.** The note carries
|
|
the abstract; the paper is one `curl` away. What a paper *says* it does and
|
|
what its evaluation *shows* are routinely different, and catching that gap is
|
|
most of the value you add.
|