Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

memory-hygiene

Periodic trust sweep of persistent memory and durable knowledge notes - re-verifies environment-dependent claims against the live environment, stamps last_verified + confidence, and proposes archiving drifted entries

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

COG Memory Hygiene Skill

Purpose

Prevent the stale-but-confident failure mode: a memory or knowledge note that was correct when written ("the webhook lives at X", "the board ID is Y") silently drifts after the environment changes, yet still ranks high at recall and gets acted on.

The system move (adapted from "From Model Scaling to System Scaling: Scaling the Harness in Agentic AI", Gu, UC Berkeley, arXiv:2605.26112): make trust a runtime decision, not a property of the stored item. Re-verify against the live environment, and keep per-entry last_verified and confidence as first-class fields so future recalls can weigh trust.

When to Invoke

  • /memory-hygiene
  • "Audit my memories" / "check for stale memories"
  • After a memory misfires (a recalled fact turned out wrong)
  • Default cadence: monthly

Scope

Sweep two stores:

  1. Agent memory — wherever your agent keeps persistent memory files (e.g. Claude Code's auto-memory directory). Sweep every entry except the index itself.
  2. Durable knowledge notes — 05-knowledge/** files whose claims reference the environment (paths, URLs, IDs, tool names).

A partial sweep ("just the reference entries") is fine when asked.

Claim Classification

For each entry, split its claims into two buckets:

BucketExamplesAction
Environment-dependentfile/dir paths, repo names, branch names, channel IDs, board IDs, URLs, API endpoints, cron/routine IDs, CLI names, version numbers, "X lives at Y"Verify against the live environment
Preference / judgmenttone rules, formatting rules, "never do X", people facts, strategy contextNo environment check possible; verify only for internal contradiction with newer entries

Verification Moves (cheap first)

  • Paths and files: ls / test -e. Skills, commands, and agents named in an entry must still exist at the stated path.
  • URLs: resolve with a HEAD/GET (curl -sI); flag 404 or redirect-to-login.
  • Repos/branches: gh repo view, git ls-remote when cheap.
  • IDs (channels, boards, routine triggers): verify only if an MCP/CLI check is one call; otherwise mark unverifiable-cheaply and leave confidence untouched.
  • Cross-entry contradiction: newer entry wins; flag the older one.

Never spend more than ~1 minute per entry. This is hygiene, not an investigation. Unverifiable ≠ drifted.

Stamping

After checking an entry, update its frontmatter metadata: block in place (do not touch body text unless fixing a verified-wrong fact):

metadata:
  type: reference
  last_verified: 2026-07-10
  confidence: high   # high = verified now | medium = unverifiable cheaply | low = partially drifted
  • Verified clean → confidence: high, stamp date.
  • Unverifiable cheaply → keep prior confidence (or medium), stamp date.
  • Partially drifted → fix the drifted fact directly in the body (reviewable via the report); set confidence: low only if unsure the fix is complete.
  • Fully obsolete → propose archive, don't delete. List it in the report's "Propose archive" section; only archive after the user confirms.

The Loop (see /loop-engineering)

Scan-until-done over the entry list with a per-entry budget guard (~1 min). The deterministic verifier is the environment itself (test -e, curl, gh) — never the agent's own recollection of whether something "should" still exist. Human escalation: all deletions/archives.

Report (single file)

Write one report per sweep to 01-daily/YYYY-MM-DD-memory-hygiene.md, structured around four evolution questions:

  1. What persists? — counts by type (user/feedback/project/reference).
  2. What updated? — entries whose body was corrected, with old → new.
  3. What is measured? — scorecard: verified / unverifiable / drifted / propose-archive counts, plus deltas vs the previous sweep report (the drift trend is the longitudinal signal one-shot checks miss).
  4. What is auditable? — every change in this sweep is a line in this report; for stores Git does not track, the report IS the audit trail.

End the report with a Propose archive section (explicit list, one line of evidence each) and a Waiting on you line if anything needs a decision.

Rules

  • Propose-only for deletions/archives; direct-apply for stamps and verified factual corrections.
  • Never rewrite an entry's voice or restructure it during a sweep.
  • If the memory index points at renamed/missing files, fix the index.
  • Keep the sweep itself out of memory: the report file is the record.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Deep strategic research engine — decomposes questions into parallel research threads, spawns multiple agents, and synthesizes into actionable strategic analysis

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

huytieu/COG-second-brain1.3KUpdated Oct 2, 2026

Quick capture of raw thoughts with intelligent domain classification and competitive intelligence extraction

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

huytieu/COG-second-brain1.3KUpdated Oct 2, 2026

Run one task through the V-model verification loop: CP-2 plan → CP-3 build → CP-3v component verify → CP-4 integration verify (full lane) → CP-5 acceptance. The worker never grades its own homework; evidence rows trace back to AC-n. Opt-in: invoke with /closed-loop or by asking for the closed loop, proper verification, or an evidence trail. Ordinary work does not run this.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

huytieu/COG-second-brain1.3KUpdated Oct 2, 2026

Deep-dive 7-day analysis across all data sources for weekly reviews, board prep, and strategic planning

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

huytieu/COG-second-brain1.3KUpdated Oct 2, 2026

Autonomous content pipeline - scout announcements in your field, triage by trend momentum and personal angle, produce posts/blogs/videos in your voice with ledger-based dedup, hard volume caps, and screenshot-verified publishing

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

huytieu/COG-second-brain1.3KUpdated Oct 2, 2026

Create user stories with duplicate checking across any project tracker (Linear, GitHub Issues, Jira)

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

huytieu/COG-second-brain1.3KUpdated Oct 2, 2026

See all skills by huytieu

Report a problem with this skill