@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/productivity/inbox-triage/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,312 @@
+---
+name: inbox-triage
+description: "Runs a full inbox triage using the knowledge base created by the 'inbox-setup' skill. Light-intake by design (most invocations skip questions and run with KB-default preferences); asks at most 2 grill-me override questions when invocation is outside normal cadence or includes category-skip intent. Searches recent emails, classifies them via the user's taxonomy, researches new senders, generates recommendations, drafts replies (NEVER sends), delivers a report in the user's preferred format, and updates the knowledge base with learnings. Designed to run on a recurring schedule (1-3x daily) or on demand. Triggers: 'triage my inbox', 'inbox triage', 'check my email', 'run email triage', 'process my inbox', 'what's new in my email', 'handle my email', 'email triage', or any variation where the user wants their inbox processed. Requires the inbox-setup skill to have been run first."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  source_spec: "megaprompts/07-inbox-triage-megaprompt.md"
+  build_pattern: "Path B (direct conversion)"
+  paired_with: "inbox-setup (consumes the 7-file KB it produces)"
+  version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Inbox-Triage — Recurring Email Triage
+
+> **Paired with `inbox-setup`.** This skill consumes the 7-file knowledge base that `inbox-setup` writes at `${WORKSPACE}/Email/`. The file contracts MUST match exactly. See [`references/kb_file_contract.md`](references/kb_file_contract.md) — this is the mirror of the setup-side contract, viewed from the read side.
+
+Run on a recurring schedule (1–3x daily) or on demand. Classify recent emails, research new senders, generate decision recommendations, draft replies (**NEVER SEND**), deliver a clean report, and update the knowledge base with what was learned this run.
+
+## Invocation Triggers
+
+- "triage my inbox"
+- "inbox triage"
+- "check my email"
+- "run email triage"
+- "process my inbox"
+- "what's new in my email"
+- "handle my email"
+- "email triage"
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+Required reads at start (fail-fast if missing):
+
+**Core (required):**
+- `${WORKSPACE}/Email/email-taxonomy.md` — classification + report preferences
+- `${WORKSPACE}/Email/email-patterns.md` — voice, persona, templates, hard rules
+
+**Optional core (read if exists):**
+- `${WORKSPACE}/Email/evaluation-framework.md`
+- `${WORKSPACE}/Email/rate-card.md`
+
+**Evolving (read AND update every run):**
+- `${WORKSPACE}/Email/blocklist.md`
+- `${WORKSPACE}/Email/tracker.md`
+
+**Output:**
+- `${WORKSPACE}/Email/triage-log/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<run-label>.md` — per-run log
+
+If any core required file is missing → **halt**, direct user to run `inbox-setup` first. Use `scripts/kb_reader.py` to perform the read + validation.
+
+## DRAFTS ONLY — Never Send
+
+> **This skill creates drafts. It NEVER sends.**
+
+This is the safety property that makes the skill safe to run automatically. Stated multiple times in this skill body. Non-negotiable.
+
+The `scripts/draft_safety_validator.py` enforces it post-run. Any send-shaped tool call in the action log fails validation. See [`references/drafts_only_safety.md`](references/drafts_only_safety.md) for the full discipline canon.
+
+## Step 0: Grill-Me Intake (Light — 0–2 Optional Override Questions)
+
+Inbox-triage is **light-intake by design** — it runs on a recurring cadence with preferences pre-baked into the knowledge base from `inbox-setup`. The grill-me discipline here is asking ONLY the override questions that matter THIS run.
+
+### Q1 (optional, asked only when on-demand run is outside normal cadence)
+
+> **Override the default 9-hour search window? Pick: yes (specify hours) / no (use default).**
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* If you're running on-demand outside your normal 2x/day cadence, you may want a wider window (24h after a long break) or narrower (2h for a quick check).
+
+Skip if cadence is normal.
+
+### Q2 (optional, asked only when user invokes with category-skip intent)
+
+> **Skip any categories this run? E.g., "skip newsletters", "skip financial".**
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* Sometimes you just want to scan opportunities or just want to clear active threads. Category skip narrows the run scope.
+
+Skip if user gave no category-skip signal.
+
+**Stop condition:** Max 2 questions. Default invocations skip both questions and run with KB-default preferences. The skill is optimized for fast recurring execution; intake is the exception, not the norm.
+
+## Step 1: Determine Search Window
+
+Compute via current date math. Default lookback: **9 hours** (works for 2x/day cadence with slight overlap so emails between runs aren't missed).
+
+Use `scripts/search_window_calculator.py --cadence <CADENCE> --now <ISO>`:
+
+```
+now = current_datetime
+window_start = now - 9_hours   (default for 2x-daily)
+run_label = "Morning" if now.hour < 12 else "Afternoon" if now.hour < 17 else "Evening"
+```
+
+Cadence-to-default-window mapping (override via Q1):
+
+| Cadence (from email-taxonomy.md S1.Q5) | Default window |
+|---|---|
+| once daily | 26h |
+| 2x daily | 9h |
+| 3x daily | 6h |
+| on-demand only | 24h (asks Q1) |
+
+## Step 2: Email Search
+
+Two queries (provider-agnostic adapter pattern):
+
+- **Primary:** Inbox + sent after `window_start`
+- **Secondary:** Starred unread (catch flagged items missed in primary)
+
+Collect for each email: sender, subject, date, snippet, thread ID, labels.
+
+Provider adapter mapping:
+
+| Provider | Tool |
+|---|---|
+| Gmail | Gmail MCP |
+| Outlook / Microsoft 365 | Outlook MCP |
+| IMAP (Fastmail, ProtonMail, etc.) | IMAP MCP if available; halt otherwise |
+| (no email tool available) | Halt with clear message: "No email tool registered for this session." |
+
+## Step 3: Classification
+
+Apply the taxonomy from `email-taxonomy.md`. For **lowest-priority** category (newsletters / automation / spam): skip thread reads entirely — context cost not worth it. For everything else: read full thread.
+
+## Step 4: Sender Research
+
+For senders not in tracker / blocklist / prior logs:
+
+1. Check `blocklist.md` → if matched, auto-skip
+2. Check `tracker.md` → if known thread, note existing context
+3. For opportunity senders (per evaluation framework): web search for company legitimacy, social presence, intermediary status
+
+**Skip research entirely** for: known senders (in tracker), internal email, automated notifications, obvious low-priority.
+
+## Step 5: Recommendations
+
+For decision-required emails, apply the framework from `evaluation-framework.md`. Categorize:
+
+| Category | When | Output |
+|---|---|---|
+| **TAKE IT** | Meets criteria | Recommend engaging; draft reply (Step 6) |
+| **WORTH CONSIDERING** | Has potential, needs user judgment | Surface key context; draft for user to edit |
+| **PASS** | Doesn't meet criteria | Brief "why" (1–3 sentences); draft polite decline |
+| **FLAG FOR REVIEW** | Unusual; needs direct user decision | Surface fully; NO draft (user decides response shape) |
+
+Each: brief "why", relevant context, pricing/timeline comparison if applicable.
+
+**Skip Step 5 entirely if no `evaluation-framework.md` exists.**
+
+See [`references/triage_decision_framework.md`](references/triage_decision_framework.md) for the framework canon.
+
+## Step 6: Drafts
+
+For every reasonable reply candidate, create a draft using `email-patterns.md` voice rules.
+
+**Draft for:** opportunity responses (TAKE IT / WORTH / PASS), active conversations needing reply, action items, important personal emails.
+
+**Do NOT draft for:**
+- Clearly no-response emails (newsletters, automation, FYI)
+- Threads where user already replied
+- Blocked senders (unless new info changes the calculus)
+
+**Mechanics:**
+
+- Draft only in the existing thread when possible (preserves context)
+- Set `to`, `subject` (`Re: [original]`)
+- **NEVER call any send operation. Only create drafts.**
+
+The draft body MUST honor:
+- Voice register from `email-patterns.md`
+- Forbidden tokens (S3.Q2 pet peeves)
+- Sign-off patterns
+- Persona context
+- Hard rules (S3.Q6 — non-negotiable)
+- Reply length per `email-patterns.md`
+
+If `evaluation-framework.md` exists, draft tone matches recommendation:
+- TAKE IT → engaged + concrete next step
+- WORTH → curious + 1-2 clarifying questions
+- PASS → polite decline + brief reason (no hedging promises)
+- FLAG → NO draft
+
+## Step 7: Report Delivery
+
+Honor user's preference from `email-taxonomy.md` "Report Preferences" section. Default: email draft to self with HTML.
+
+**Subject:** `Inbox Triage — [Day], [Month Date] ([Run Label])`
+
+**Sections (in order):**
+
+1. **Overview** — 2–3 sentences. What happened? Anything urgent?
+2. **Stats** — Counts: processed, drafts created, action needed, skipped.
+3. **Action Needed** — Overdue items, decisions, drafts to review, deadlines.
+4. **Quick Reference** — One line per email, alphabetical by sender. `**Sender** — one-sentence summary + recommendation`.
+5. **Detailed Cards** — Opportunities, active threads, flags. Each: sender / subject / category, recommendation + reasoning, key context. **NO draft text previews** (drafts are already in email client for user to read there).
+6. **Footer** — Generation timestamp + KB update summary.
+
+**Formatting (if HTML):**
+
+- **Inline CSS only** (Gmail strips `<style>`)
+- Color-coded by recommendation:
+  - green → TAKE IT
+  - amber → WORTH CONSIDERING
+  - red → PASS
+  - purple → FLAG FOR REVIEW
+  - blue → active conversation
+
+## Step 8: Knowledge Base Update
+
+**`blocklist.md`** (append new):
+
+- New declined senders + reason + date
+- New decline patterns from observed behavior (e.g., "all emails containing 'looking for backend engineers' from gmail addresses → cold recruiter pattern")
+- Remove entries if user has overridden them (user replied to a "blocked" sender → unblock)
+
+**`tracker.md`** (append + update):
+
+- New follow-ups for emails needing future action
+- Update existing follow-ups (deadline changed, status changed)
+- Mark resolved items complete
+- Flag overdue items
+- Remove resolved items older than 30 days
+- Add entry to update log
+
+**Learning patterns to observe over runs:**
+
+- Drafts sent as-is vs. edited vs. deleted → tone calibration signal
+- PASS recommendations user overrides → framework adjustment signal
+- Engaged vs. ignored emails → taxonomy refinement signal
+- New decline patterns → blocklist additions
+
+After 5+ runs, suggest KB improvements to user (e.g., "You always decline emails from X — add as auto-skip?").
+
+## Step 9: Internal Log
+
+Save to `${WORKSPACE}/Email/triage-log/[YYYY-MM-DD]-[run-label].md`:
+
+- Emails processed with classifications
+- Recommendations made
+- Drafts created (with IDs / thread refs)
+- KB updates made
+- Follow-ups added / resolved
+- Notable observations (patterns surfaced, edge cases handled)
+
+The log is the audit trail for `scripts/draft_safety_validator.py` to scan for send operations post-run.
+
+## Step 10: Empty Inbox Handling
+
+Even with zero new emails:
+
+1. Check `tracker.md` for items due today or overdue
+2. Generate minimal report: "No new actionable emails since last run"
+3. Flag any overdue items
+4. Escalate per tracker rules
+
+Skip Steps 3–6 entirely on empty inbox.
+
+## Critical Rules (Stated Multiple Times)
+
+1. **DRAFTS ONLY — NEVER SEND.** Non-negotiable. Stated again here.
+2. **Privacy.** No passwords / credentials in KB. Reference threads by ID for sensitive content.
+3. **Accuracy over speed.** When unsure, flag for review. A wrong auto-draft is worse than no draft.
+4. **Respect the KB.** Documented preferences are source of truth. Don't override with judgment.
+5. **Transparency.** Note every KB change in the triage log.
+6. **First runs need oversight.** Document this expectation for the user.
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Situation | Behavior |
+|---|---|
+| KB files missing | Halt; direct user to run `inbox-setup` |
+| Email tool unavailable | Halt with clear message about required tool |
+| Web search unavailable for sender research | Skip research step; note senders not researched |
+| Draft creation fails | Skip that draft; note in log; report continues |
+| Report delivery fails | Save report to file as fallback; notify user |
+| User has 100+ new emails | Stay within reasonable limits; flag volume; offer to focus on priority categories only |
+| Sender appears in both blocklist and tracker | Tracker wins (active conversation); note inconsistency in log |
+
+## Portability
+
+- **Claude Code CLI:** Native — uses Gmail / Outlook MCP, file tools for KB, web search for research.
+- **Claude.ai web:** Works when email MCP connector is connected (Gmail MCP available). Skill must check tool availability before assuming. If no email tool: halt with clear message.
+
+## Tooling
+
+| Script | Role |
+|---|---|
+| `scripts/kb_reader.py` | Reads + validates the 7-file KB. Returns parsed structure. Halts with explicit error if required files missing. |
+| `scripts/search_window_calculator.py` | Computes `window_start` from cadence + current time. Returns `run_label`. Honors Q1 override. |
+| `scripts/draft_safety_validator.py` | Post-run scan of the action log for any send-shaped tool call. FAILs if detected. The deterministic enforcement of the NEVER-SEND rule. |
+
+## References
+
+- [`references/kb_file_contract.md`](references/kb_file_contract.md) — canonical 7-file contract (read perspective; mirrors `inbox-setup/references/kb_file_contract.md`)
+- [`references/triage_decision_framework.md`](references/triage_decision_framework.md) — TAKE IT / WORTH / PASS / FLAG taxonomy
+- [`references/drafts_only_safety.md`](references/drafts_only_safety.md) — the NEVER-SEND discipline canon
+
+## Anti-Patterns To Reject
+
+- **Sending emails** (drafts only — non-negotiable)
+- Operating without knowledge base files
+- Storing passwords / credentials in KB
+- Skipping the learning loop (KB updates) at end of run
+- Overriding user's documented preferences with own judgment
+- Reading lowest-priority threads (waste of context)
+- Including draft text previews in report (drafts are already in email client)
+- Provider lock-in without adapter pattern
+- Silently failing on missing tools
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Source spec:** [`megaprompts/07-inbox-triage-megaprompt.md`](../../../../megaprompts/07-inbox-triage-megaprompt.md)
+**Build pattern:** Path B (direct conversion). Paired with `inbox-setup`.

package/productivity/reflect/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+---
+name: reflect
+description: "Mid-conversation reflection skill that pauses execution and zooms out from detail-mode to honestly reassess direction, assumptions, and bias. Use when the user says 'reflect', 'take a step back', 'step back', 'zoom out', 'are we missing something', 'bigger picture', 'sanity check this', 'are we on track', 'are we overthinking this', 'forest for the trees', or any variation signaling intent to break out of detail-mode and reassess. Also trigger when the conversation has gone deep on implementation details without strategic check-in, or when the user shows signs of being stuck — that's often a signal the framing needs a reset, not more detail work. Intentionally low-intake: runs the 5-dimension analysis immediately when prior context is rich enough; asks one forcing clarifier only when invocation context is too thin to reassess from."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  source_spec: "megaprompts/02-reflect-megaprompt.md"
+  build_pattern: "Path B (direct conversion)"
+  version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Reflect — Mid-Conversation Reassessment
+
+> **Portability:** Pure-reasoning skill. No external tools required. Works in Claude Code CLI + Claude.ai web natively. Most portable in the v2 collection.
+
+When invoked mid-conversation, this skill **pauses execution** and produces a frank reassessment of where the conversation has been heading. Output is **flowing analysis (no headers, conversational tone)** covering macro perspective, gap analysis, reflective inquiry, bias check, and contextual alignment. The skill ends with a clear directional recommendation: **continue, pivot, or pause to answer a specific question**.
+
+## Invocation Triggers
+
+**Explicit phrases:**
+
+- "reflect"
+- "take a step back" / "step back"
+- "zoom out"
+- "are we missing something"
+- "bigger picture"
+- "what are we missing"
+- "let's pause"
+- "sanity check this"
+- "are we on track"
+- "are we overthinking this"
+- "forest for the trees"
+
+**Implicit signals (no phrase needed):**
+
+- Conversation has gone 10+ turns deep on implementation details without strategic check-in
+- User shows signs of frustration or stuck-ness
+- Repeated dead-ends or pivots within a short span
+
+When you detect an implicit trigger, **don't auto-invoke** — ask the user if they want to step back. Implicit signals are a prompt to OFFER reflection, not to unilaterally run it.
+
+## Stop Directive (Before Reassessing)
+
+**Halt the current thread.** Don't continue execution of the in-progress task. Reflection is a pause, not a side-quest.
+
+This matters because:
+- Continuing detail work while "reflecting on the side" defeats the purpose — you'll over-weight the current direction
+- The user expects a clear break in cadence
+- The reassessment needs full attention to the conversation history
+
+## Grill-Me Optional Clarifier
+
+This skill is intentionally **low-intake** — most invocations should run the 5-dimension analysis immediately without questions. The grill-me discipline applies *only* when the invocation is ambiguous (e.g., user pastes "step back" at the start of a fresh conversation with no prior context to reassess).
+
+### Q1 (optional, asked only when context is too thin to reassess)
+
+> **What specifically should I reassess? Pick one:**
+>
+> 1. The goal — are we solving the right problem?
+> 2. The approach — is the path we're on the best one?
+> 3. The assumptions — what are we taking for granted?
+> 4. All of the above (default if you have time)
+>
+> *Why I'm asking:* I'm seeing limited prior context to reassess, so I want to focus the reflection rather than guess. If you'd rather I do all three, that's fine — say so.
+
+Forcing choice with default. **Asked only when context is genuinely thin; otherwise skip and run the full analysis on existing conversation.**
+
+**Stop condition:** One question max. If the user invokes mid-conversation with normal context, no questions are asked — the skill runs directly.
+
+## The 5-Dimension Analysis Framework
+
+Re-read the **full conversation from the original goal forward** — not just recent turns. The discipline that distinguishes real reflection from local-context summary.
+
+### 1. Macro Perspective
+
+- **Original goal:** What did the user actually start trying to do?
+- **Drift detection:** Has the conversation moved away from that goal? Toward something better or worse?
+- **Connection check:** How does current work connect to the larger objective?
+
+Anchor with specific evidence: "At turn 3 the goal was X; by turn 12 we're working on Y. Is Y a productive narrowing of X, or a drift away?"
+
+### 2. Gap Analysis
+
+- **Unverified assumptions** — what are we taking for granted that we haven't checked?
+- **Missing stakeholders / audiences / users** — who needs this beyond the immediate context?
+- **Skipped constraints** — technical, regulatory, resource limits not addressed
+- **Dismissed alternatives** — paths considered but rejected; revisit briefly
+- **External factors** — timing, market, dependencies not in scope
+
+### 3. Reflective Inquiry
+
+- Is the problem framed correctly?
+- Solving the right problem vs. an adjacent easier one?
+- Simpler path being overcomplicated?
+- Harder but more valuable path being avoided?
+- **Fresh-eyes perspective:** would someone else approach this differently?
+
+### 4. Bias Check
+
+Five biases — recognize each through specific conversation patterns:
+
+| Bias | Recognition cue |
+|---|---|
+| **Confirmation bias** | Evidence cited only supports the working hypothesis; counter-evidence absent or dismissed |
+| **Sunk cost fallacy** | "We've already invested X" / "we're far enough in to..." instead of fresh cost/benefit |
+| **Anchoring** | Stuck on first option mentioned; new options compared against it rather than evaluated independently |
+| **Complexity bias** | Adding features / steps / safeguards without specific justification for each |
+| **Recency bias** | Over-weighting last few turns; older but important context being ignored |
+
+For each detected bias: name it, cite the specific evidence, suggest a corrective move.
+
+See [`references/cognitive_bias_canon.md`](references/cognitive_bias_canon.md) for the full canon.
+
+### 5. Contextual Alignment
+
+- Does the direction serve the user's actual goals (as known from context)?
+- Are external factors being ignored?
+- Is this the best use of the user's time and energy right now?
+- Connection to other known projects or priorities?
+
+## Tone and Format Rules
+
+The skill must produce:
+
+- **Flowing prose** — no headers, no bullet lists, no structured-report formatting
+- **Tight but thorough** — neither a one-liner nor a wall of text
+- **Direct critique when warranted** — with specific evidence from the conversation
+- **Validation when warranted** — with specific reasoning for why the path is solid
+- **No vague reassurance** — "looks good!" without reasoning is rejected
+- **No manufactured problems** — when the path is genuinely solid, say so with specific reasons; don't invent issues
+
+See [`references/honest_output_discipline.md`](references/honest_output_discipline.md) for the anti-manufactured-problems framing.
+
+## Closing Recommendation (Mandatory)
+
+Every run ends with one of three directional recommendations:
+
+| Recommendation | When | Format |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Continue** | Path is solid | "Continue. {specific reasoning for why}." |
+| **Pivot to {X}** | Drift has occurred OR better path surfaced | "Pivot toward {X}, away from {what to drop}. {specific evidence}." |
+| **Pause for {Q}** | A specific question needs answering before continuing | "Pause for {Q}. Without answering this, the next step risks {specific cost}." |
+
+The closing is always specific — never "you should think more about this" or "consider your options."
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Situation | Behavior |
+|---|---|
+| Conversation is very short (no real context to reassess) | Acknowledge limitation, ask user what they want reassessed (Q1 fires) |
+| Current direction is genuinely solid | State this clearly with reasoning; don't manufacture problems |
+| User invokes mid-task with no clear question | Default to macro perspective + bias check; offer to dig deeper |
+| Implicit trigger seems possible but unclear | Don't invoke proactively; ask user if they want to step back |
+
+## Tooling
+
+| Script | Role |
+|---|---|
+| `scripts/bias_pattern_detector.py` | Scan conversation text for patterns indicative of each of the 5 biases |
+| `scripts/conversation_depth_analyzer.py` | Count turns + detect implicit-trigger signals (10+ detail turns, frustration markers) |
+| `scripts/directional_recommendation_validator.py` | Verify output ends with Continue / Pivot / Pause + specific reasoning |
+
+## References
+
+- [`references/cognitive_bias_canon.md`](references/cognitive_bias_canon.md) — 5 biases + recognition cues (7+ sources)
+- [`references/honest_output_discipline.md`](references/honest_output_discipline.md) — anti-manufactured-problems framing (7+ sources)
+- [`references/conversation_reflection_practice.md`](references/conversation_reflection_practice.md) — Schön reflective-practice canon (7+ sources)
+
+## Anti-Patterns To Reject
+
+- Hardcoded user names or specific domain references
+- Structured-report output (headers, bullet lists) when prose is required
+- Manufactured problems when things are actually fine
+- Vague reassurance ("looks good!") instead of specific reasoning
+- Reassessing only recent turns instead of the full conversation
+- Skipping the closing directional recommendation
+- Continuing the in-progress task while "reflecting on the side"
+
+---
+
+**Version:** 1.0.0
+**Source spec:** [`megaprompts/02-reflect-megaprompt.md`](../../../../megaprompts/02-reflect-megaprompt.md)
+**Build pattern:** Path B (direct conversion). Productivity light-prompt-flow sibling of capture.