arscontexta 0.6.0

package/platforms/shared/skill-blocks/reweave.md

@@ -0,0 +1,680 @@
+---
+# GENERATION TEMPLATE — Do not edit directly
+# This template is transformed by the derivation engine during /setup.
+# All {vocabulary.*} markers resolve from the preset's vocabulary.yaml.
+# All {config.*} markers resolve from the preset's preset.yaml.
+# All {DOMAIN:*} markers resolve from conversation-derived domain context.
+# All {if ...}{endif} blocks are conditionally included based on config.
+source_skill: reweave
+min_processing_depth: standard
+platform: shared
+---
+
+---
+name: {vocabulary.reweave}
+description: Update old {vocabulary.note_plural} with new connections. The backward pass that /{vocabulary.reflect} doesn't do. Revisit existing {vocabulary.note_plural} that predate newer related content, add connections, sharpen claims, consider splits. Triggers on "/{vocabulary.reweave}", "/{vocabulary.reweave} [{vocabulary.note}]", "update old {vocabulary.note_plural}", "backward connections", "revisit {vocabulary.note_plural}".
+user-invocable: true
+allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, mcp__qmd__search, mcp__qmd__vsearch, mcp__qmd__query, mcp__qmd__status
+context: fork
+model: opus
+generated_from: "arscontexta-{plugin_version}"
+---
+
+## Runtime Configuration (Step 0 — before any processing)
+
+Read these files to configure domain-specific behavior:
+
+1. **`{config.ops_dir}/derivation-manifest.md`** — vocabulary mapping, platform hints
+   - Use `vocabulary.notes` for the notes folder name
+   - Use `vocabulary.note` / `vocabulary.note_plural` for note type references
+   - Use `vocabulary.reweave` for the process verb in output
+   - Use `vocabulary.topic_map` / `vocabulary.topic_map_plural` for MOC references
+   - Use `vocabulary.cmd_verify` for the next-phase suggestion
+
+2. **`{config.ops_dir}/config.yaml`** — processing depth, pipeline chaining
+   - `processing.depth`: deep | standard | quick
+   - `processing.chaining`: manual | suggested | automatic
+   - `processing.reweave.scope`: related | broad | full
+
+If these files don't exist, use universal defaults.
+
+**Processing depth adaptation:**
+
+| Depth | Reweave Behavior |
+|-------|-----------------|
+| deep | Full reconsideration. Search extensively for newer related {vocabulary.note_plural}. Consider splits, rewrites, challenges. Evaluate claim sharpening. Multiple search passes. |
+| standard | Balanced review. Search semantic neighbors and same-{vocabulary.topic_map} {vocabulary.note_plural}. Add connections, sharpen if needed. |
+| quick | Minimal backward pass. Add obvious connections only. No rewrites or splits. |
+
+**Reweave scope:**
+
+| Scope | Behavior |
+|-------|----------|
+| related | Search {vocabulary.note_plural} directly related to the target (same {vocabulary.topic_map}, semantic neighbors) |
+| broad | Search across all {vocabulary.topic_map_plural} and semantic space for potential connections |
+| full | Complete review including potential splits, rewrites, and claim challenges |
+
+## EXECUTE NOW
+
+**Target: $ARGUMENTS**
+
+Parse immediately:
+- If target contains `[[{vocabulary.note} name]]` or {vocabulary.note} name: reweave that specific {vocabulary.note}
+- If target contains `--handoff`: output RALPH HANDOFF block at end
+- If target is empty: find {vocabulary.note_plural} that most need reweaving (oldest, sparsest, most outdated)
+- If target is "recent" or "--since Nd": reweave {vocabulary.note_plural} not touched in N days
+- If target is "sparse": find {vocabulary.note_plural} with fewest connections
+
+**Execute these steps:**
+
+1. **Read the target {vocabulary.note} fully** — understand its current claim, connections, and age
+2. **Ask the reweave question:** "If I wrote this {vocabulary.note} today, with everything I now know, what would be different?"
+3. **If a task file exists** (pipeline execution): read it to see what /{vocabulary.reflect} discovered. The Reflect section shows which connections were just added and which {vocabulary.topic_map_plural} were updated — this is your starting context for the backward pass.
+4. **Search for newer related {vocabulary.note_plural}** — use dual discovery (semantic search + {vocabulary.topic_map} browsing) to find {vocabulary.note_plural} created AFTER the target that should connect
+5. **Evaluate what needs changing:**
+   - Add connections to newer {vocabulary.note_plural} that did not exist when this was written
+   - Sharpen the claim if understanding has evolved
+   - Consider splitting if the {vocabulary.note} now covers what should be separate ideas
+   - Challenge the claim if new evidence contradicts it
+   - Rewrite prose if understanding is deeper now
+6. **Make the changes** — edit the {vocabulary.note} with new connections (inline links with context), improved prose, sharper claim if needed
+7. **Update {vocabulary.topic_map_plural}** — if the {vocabulary.note}'s topic membership changed, update relevant {vocabulary.topic_map_plural}
+8. **If task file exists:** update the {vocabulary.reweave} section
+9. **Report** — structured summary of what changed and why
+10. If `--handoff` in target: output RALPH HANDOFF block
+
+**START NOW.** Reference below explains methodology — use to guide, not as output.
+
+---
+
+# {vocabulary.reweave_title}
+
+Revisit old {vocabulary.note_plural} with everything you know today. {vocabulary.note_plural} are living documents — they grow, get rewritten, split apart, sharpen their claims. This is the backward pass that keeps the network alive.
+
+## Philosophy
+
+**{vocabulary.note_plural} are living documents, not finished artifacts.**
+
+A {vocabulary.note} written last month was written with last month's understanding. Since then:
+- New {vocabulary.note_plural} exist that relate to it
+- Understanding of the topic deepened
+- The claim might need sharpening or challenging
+- What was one idea might now be three
+- Connections that were not obvious then are obvious now
+
+Reweaving is not just "add backward links." It is completely reconsidering the {vocabulary.note} based on current knowledge. Ask: **"If I wrote this {vocabulary.note} today, what would be different?"**
+
+> "The {vocabulary.note} you wrote yesterday is a hypothesis. Today's knowledge is the test."
+
+## What Reweaving Can Do
+
+| Action | When to Do It |
+|--------|---------------|
+| **Add connections** | Newer {vocabulary.note_plural} exist that should link here |
+| **Rewrite content** | Understanding evolved, prose should reflect it |
+| **Sharpen the claim** | Title is too vague to be useful |
+| **Split the {vocabulary.note}** | Multiple claims bundled together |
+| **Challenge the claim** | New evidence contradicts the original |
+| **Improve the description** | Better framing emerged |
+| **Update examples** | Better illustrations exist now |
+
+Reweaving is NOT just Phase 4 of /{vocabulary.reflect} applied backward. It is a full reconsideration.
+
+## Invocation Patterns
+
+### /{vocabulary.reweave} [[{vocabulary.note}]]
+
+Fully reconsider a specific {vocabulary.note} against current knowledge.
+
+### /{vocabulary.reweave} (no argument)
+
+Scan for candidates needing reweaving, present ranked list.
+
+### /{vocabulary.reweave} --sparse
+
+Process {vocabulary.note_plural} flagged as sparse by /health.
+
+### /{vocabulary.reweave} --since Nd
+
+Reweave all {vocabulary.note_plural} not updated in N days.
+
+**How to find candidates:**
+```bash
+# Find notes not modified in 30 days
+find {config.notes_dir}/ -name "*.md" -mtime +30 -type f
+```
+
+### /{vocabulary.reweave} --handoff [[{vocabulary.note}]]
+
+External loop mode for /ralph:
+- Execute full workflow as normal
+- At the end, output structured RALPH HANDOFF block
+- Used when running isolated phases with fresh context per task
+
+---
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Phase 1: Understand the {vocabulary.note} as It Exists
+
+Read the target {vocabulary.note} completely. Understand:
+- What claim does it make?
+- What reasoning supports the claim?
+- What connections does it have?
+- When was it written/last modified?
+- What was the context when it was created?
+
+**Also read the task file** if one exists (pipeline execution). The task file's Reflect section shows:
+- What connections /{vocabulary.reflect} just added
+- Which {vocabulary.topic_map_plural} were updated
+- What synthesis opportunities were flagged
+- What the discovery trace looked like
+
+This context prevents redundant work — you know what /{vocabulary.reflect} already found, so you can focus on what it missed or what needs deeper reconsideration.
+
+### Phase 2: Gather Current Knowledge (Dual Discovery)
+
+Use the same dual discovery pattern as /{vocabulary.reflect} — {vocabulary.topic_map} exploration AND semantic search in parallel.
+
+**Path 1: {vocabulary.topic_map} Exploration** — curated navigation
+
+From the {vocabulary.note}'s Topics footer, identify which {vocabulary.topic_map}(s) it belongs to:
+- Read the relevant {vocabulary.topic_map}(s)
+- What synthesis exists that might affect this {vocabulary.note}?
+- What newer {vocabulary.note_plural} in Core Ideas should this {vocabulary.note} reference?
+- What tensions involve this {vocabulary.note}?
+
+{if config.semantic_search}
+**Path 2: Semantic Search** — find what {vocabulary.topic_map_plural} might miss
+
+**Three-tier fallback for semantic search:**
+
+**Tier 1 — MCP tools (preferred):** Use `mcp__qmd__query` (hybrid search with expansion + reranking):
+- query: "[{vocabulary.note}'s core concepts and mechanisms]"
+- limit: 15
+
+**Tier 2 — bash qmd with lock serialization:** If MCP tools fail or are unavailable:
+```bash
+LOCKDIR="{config.ops_dir}/queue/.locks/qmd.lock"
+while ! mkdir "$LOCKDIR" 2>/dev/null; do sleep 2; done
+qmd query "[note's core concepts]" --collection {vocabulary.notes_collection} --limit 15 2>/dev/null
+rm -rf "$LOCKDIR"
+```
+
+The lock prevents multiple parallel workers from loading large models simultaneously.
+
+**Tier 3 — grep only:** If both MCP and bash fail, log "qmd unavailable, grep-only discovery" and rely on {vocabulary.topic_map} + keyword search only. This degrades quality but does not block work.
+{endif}
+
+{if !config.semantic_search}
+**Path 2: Keyword Search** — find what {vocabulary.topic_map_plural} might miss
+
+```bash
+grep -r "key concepts from {vocabulary.note}" {config.notes_dir}/ --include="*.md"
+```
+{endif}
+
+Evaluate results by relevance — read any result where title or snippet suggests genuine connection.
+
+**Also check:**
+- Backlinks — what {vocabulary.note_plural} already reference this one? Do they suggest the target should cite back?
+
+```bash
+grep -rl '\[\[target {vocabulary.note} title\]\]' {config.notes_dir}/ --include="*.md"
+```
+
+**Key question:** What do I know today that I did not know when this {vocabulary.note} was written?
+
+### Phase 3: Evaluate the Claim
+
+**Does the original claim still hold?**
+
+| Finding | Action |
+|---------|--------|
+| Claim holds, evidence strengthened | Add supporting connections |
+| Claim holds but framing is weak | Rewrite for clarity |
+| Claim is too vague | Sharpen to be more specific |
+| Claim is too broad | Split into focused {vocabulary.note_plural} |
+| Claim is partially wrong | Revise with nuance |
+| Claim is contradicted | Flag tension, propose revision |
+
+**The Sharpening Test:**
+
+Read the title. Ask: could someone disagree with this specific claim?
+- If yes, the claim is sharp enough
+- If no, it is too vague and needs sharpening
+
+Example:
+- Vague: "context matters" (who would disagree?)
+- Sharp: "explicit context beats automatic memory" (arguable position)
+
+**The Split Test:**
+
+Does this {vocabulary.note} make multiple claims that could stand alone?
+- If the {vocabulary.note} connects to 5+ topics across different domains, it probably needs splitting
+- If you would want to link to part of it but not all, it is a split candidate
+
+### Phase 4: Evaluate Connections
+
+**Backward connections (what this {vocabulary.note} should reference):**
+
+For each newer {vocabulary.note}, ask:
+- Does it extend this {vocabulary.note}'s argument?
+- Does it provide evidence or examples?
+- Does it share mechanisms?
+- Does it create tension worth acknowledging?
+- Would referencing it strengthen the reasoning?
+
+**Forward connections (what should reference this {vocabulary.note}):**
+
+Check newer {vocabulary.note_plural} that SHOULD link here but do not:
+- Do they make arguments that rely on this claim?
+- Would following this link provide useful context?
+
+**Agent Traversal Check (apply to all connections):**
+
+Ask: **"If an agent follows this link during traversal, what decision or understanding does it enable?"**
+
+Connections exist to serve agent navigation. Adding a link because content is "related" without operational value creates noise. Every backward or forward connection should answer:
+- Does this help an agent understand WHY something works?
+- Does this help an agent decide HOW to implement something?
+- Does this surface a tension the agent should consider?
+
+Reject connections that are merely "interesting" without agent utility.
+
+**Articulation requirement:**
+
+Every new connection must articulate WHY:
+- "extends this by adding the temporal dimension"
+- "provides evidence that supports this claim"
+- "contradicts this — needs resolution"
+
+Never: "related" or "see also"
+
+### Phase 5: Apply Changes
+
+**For pipeline execution (--handoff mode):** Apply changes directly. The pipeline needs to proceed without waiting for approval.
+
+**For interactive execution (no --handoff):** Present the reweave proposal first, then apply after approval.
+
+**Reweave proposal format (interactive only):**
+
+```markdown
+## Reweave Proposal: [[target {vocabulary.note}]]
+
+**Last modified:** YYYY-MM-DD
+**Current knowledge evaluated:** N newer {vocabulary.note_plural}, M backlinks
+
+### Claim Assessment
+
+[Does the claim hold? Need sharpening? Splitting? Revision?]
+
+### Proposed Changes
+
+**1. [change type]: [description]**
+
+Current:
+> [existing text]
+
+Proposed:
+> [new text]
+
+Rationale: [why this change]
+
+**2. [change type]: [description]**
+...
+
+### Connections to Add
+
+- [[newer {vocabulary.note} A]] — [relationship]: [specific reason]
+- [[newer {vocabulary.note} B]] — [relationship]: [specific reason]
+
+### Connections to Verify (other {vocabulary.note_plural} should link here)
+
+- [[{vocabulary.note} X]] might benefit from referencing this because...
+
+### Not Changing
+
+- [What was considered but rejected, and why]
+
+---
+
+Apply these changes? (yes/no/modify)
+```
+
+**When applying changes:**
+
+1. Make changes atomically
+2. Preserve existing valid content
+3. Maintain prose flow — new links should read naturally inline
+4. Verify all link targets exist
+5. Update description if claim changed
+
+---
+
+## The Five Reweave Actions
+
+### 1. Add Connections
+
+The simplest action. Newer {vocabulary.note_plural} exist that should be referenced.
+
+**Inline connections (preferred):**
+```markdown
+# before
+The constraint shifts from capture to curation.
+
+# after
+The constraint shifts from capture to curation, and since [[throughput matters more than accumulation]], the question becomes who does the selecting.
+```
+
+**Footer connections:**
+```yaml
+relevant_notes:
+  - "[[newer {vocabulary.note}]] — extends this by adding temporal dimension"
+```
+
+### 2. Rewrite Content
+
+Understanding evolved. The prose should reflect current thinking, not historical thinking.
+
+**When to rewrite:**
+- Reasoning is clearer now
+- Better examples exist
+- Phrasing was awkward
+- Important nuance was missing
+
+**How to rewrite:**
+- Preserve the core claim (unless challenging it)
+- Improve the path to the conclusion
+- Incorporate new connections as prose
+- Maintain the {vocabulary.note}'s voice
+
+### 3. Sharpen the Claim
+
+Vague claims cannot be built on. Sharpen means making the claim more specific and arguable.
+
+**Sharpening patterns:**
+
+| Vague | Sharp |
+|-------|-------|
+| "X is important" | "X matters because Y, which enables Z" |
+| "consider doing X" | "X works when [condition] because [mechanism]" |
+| "there are tradeoffs" | "[specific tradeoff]: gaining X costs Y" |
+
+**When sharpening, also update:**
+- Title (if claim changed) — use the rename script if available
+- Description (must match new claim)
+- Body (reasoning must support sharpened claim)
+
+### 4. Split the {vocabulary.note}
+
+One {vocabulary.note} became multiple ideas over time. Splitting creates focused, composable pieces.
+
+**Split indicators:**
+- Connects to 5+ topics across different domains
+- Makes multiple distinct claims
+- You would want to link to part but not all
+- Different sections could be referenced independently
+
+**Split process:**
+
+1. Identify the distinct claims
+2. Create new {vocabulary.note_plural} for each claim
+3. Each new {vocabulary.note} gets:
+   - Focused title (the claim)
+   - Own description
+   - Relevant subset of content
+   - Appropriate connections
+4. Original {vocabulary.note} either:
+   - Becomes a synthesis linking to the splits
+   - Gets archived if splits fully replace it
+   - Retains one claim and links to others
+
+**Example split:**
+
+Original: "knowledge systems need both structure and flexibility"
+
+Splits:
+- [[structure enables retrieval at scale]]
+- [[flexibility allows organic growth]]
+- [[structure and flexibility create tension]] (links to both)
+
+**When NOT to split:**
+- {vocabulary.note} is genuinely about one thing that touches many areas
+- Connections are all variations of the same relationship
+- Splitting would create {vocabulary.note_plural} too thin to stand alone
+
+### 5. Challenge the Claim
+
+New evidence contradicts the original. Do not silently "fix" — acknowledge the evolution.
+
+**Challenge patterns:**
+
+```markdown
+# if partially wrong
+The original insight was [X]. However, [[newer evidence]] suggests [Y]. The refined claim is [Z].
+
+# if tension exists
+This argues [X]. But [[contradicting {vocabulary.note}]] argues [Y]. The tension remains unresolved — possibly [X] applies in context A while [Y] applies in context B.
+
+# if significantly wrong
+This {vocabulary.note} originally claimed [X]. Based on [[evidence]], the claim is revised: [new claim].
+```
+
+**Always log challenges:** When a claim is challenged or revised, this is a significant event. Note it in the task file {vocabulary.reweave} section with the original claim, the new evidence, and the revised position.
+
+---
+
+## Enrichment-Triggered Actions
+
+When processing a {vocabulary.note} that came through the enrichment pipeline, check the task file for `post_enrich_action` signals. These were surfaced by /enrich and need execution:
+
+### title-sharpen
+
+The enrich phase determined the {vocabulary.note}'s title is too vague after content integration.
+
+1. Read `post_enrich_detail` for the recommended new title
+2. Evaluate: is the suggested title actually better? (sharper claim, more specific, still composable as prose)
+3. If yes and a rename script exists: use it to rename. Otherwise rename manually and update all wiki links.
+4. Update the {vocabulary.note}'s description to match the new title
+5. Log the rename in the task file {vocabulary.reweave} section
+
+### split-recommended
+
+The enrich phase determined the {vocabulary.note} now covers multiple distinct claims.
+
+1. Read `post_enrich_detail` for the split recommendation
+2. Evaluate: does splitting genuinely improve the vault? (each piece must stand alone)
+3. If yes:
+   - Create new {vocabulary.note} files for each split claim
+   - Move relevant content from original to splits
+   - Update original to either link to splits or retain one claim
+   - Create queue entries for the new {vocabulary.note_plural} starting at the connect phase
+4. Log the split in the task file {vocabulary.reweave} section
+
+### merge-candidate
+
+The enrich phase determined this {vocabulary.note} substantially overlaps with another.
+
+**Do NOT auto-merge or auto-delete.** This requires human judgment.
+
+1. Log the merge recommendation in the task file {vocabulary.reweave} section
+2. Note which {vocabulary.note_plural} overlap and why
+3. The final report surfaces this for human review
+
+---
+
+## Quality Gates
+
+### Gate 1: Articulation Test
+
+Every change must be articulable. "I am adding this because..." with a specific reason.
+
+### Gate 2: Improvement Test
+
+After changes, is the {vocabulary.note} better? More useful? More connected? More accurate?
+
+If you cannot confidently say yes, do not make the change.
+
+### Gate 3: Coherence Test
+
+After changes, does the {vocabulary.note} still cohere as a single focused piece? Or did you accidentally make it broader?
+
+### Gate 4: Network Test
+
+Do the changes improve the network? More traversal paths? Better paths?
+
+### Gate 5: When NOT to Change
+
+- The {vocabulary.note} is accurate, well-connected, and recent — leave it alone
+- The "improvement" would just be cosmetic rewording — do not churn
+- The {vocabulary.note} is a historical record — these evolve through status changes, not rewrites
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+## Reweave Complete: [[target {vocabulary.note}]]
+
+### Changes Applied
+
+| Type | Description |
+|------|-------------|
+| connection | added [[{vocabulary.note} A]] inline, [[{vocabulary.note} B]] to footer |
+| rewrite | clarified reasoning in paragraph 2 |
+| sharpen | title unchanged, description updated |
+
+### Claim Status
+
+[unchanged | sharpened | split | challenged]
+
+### Network Effect
+
+- Outgoing links: 3 -> 5
+- This {vocabulary.note} now bridges [[domain A]] and [[domain B]]
+
+### Cascade Recommendations
+
+- [[related {vocabulary.note}]] might benefit from reweave (similar vintage)
+- {vocabulary.topic_map} [[topic]] should be updated to reflect changes
+
+### Observations
+
+[Patterns noticed, insights for future]
+```
+
+---
+
+## What Success Looks Like
+
+Successful reweaving:
+- {vocabulary.note} reflects current understanding, not historical understanding
+- Claim is sharp enough to disagree with
+- Connections exist to relevant newer content
+- {vocabulary.note} participates actively in the network
+- Someone reading it today gets the best version
+
+The test: **if this {vocabulary.note} were written today with everything you know, would it be meaningfully different?** If yes and you did not change it, reweaving failed.
+
+---
+
+## Critical Constraints
+
+**Never:**
+- Silently change claims without acknowledging evolution
+- Split {vocabulary.note_plural} into pieces too thin to stand alone
+- Add connections without articulating why
+- Rewrite voice/style (preserve the {vocabulary.note}'s character)
+- Make changes without approval in interactive mode
+- Create wiki links to non-existent files
+
+**Always:**
+- Present proposals before editing (interactive mode)
+- Explain rationale for each change
+- Preserve what is still valid
+- Log significant claim changes
+- Verify link targets exist
+
+---
+
+## The Network Lives Through Evolution
+
+{vocabulary.note_plural} written yesterday do not know about today. {vocabulary.note_plural} written with old understanding do not reflect new understanding. Without reweaving, the vault becomes a graveyard of outdated thinking that happens to be organized.
+
+Reweaving is how knowledge stays alive. Not just connecting, but questioning, sharpening, splitting, rewriting. Every {vocabulary.note} is a hypothesis. Every reweave is a test.
+
+The network compounds through evolution, not just accumulation.
+
+---
+
+## Handoff Mode (--handoff flag)
+
+When invoked with `--handoff`, output this structured format at the END of the session. This enables external loops (/ralph) to parse results and update the task queue.
+
+**Detection:** Check if `$ARGUMENTS` contains `--handoff`. If yes, append this block after completing normal workflow.
+
+**Handoff format:**
+
+```
+=== RALPH HANDOFF: {vocabulary.reweave} ===
+Target: [[{vocabulary.note} name]]
+
+Work Done:
+- Older {vocabulary.note_plural} updated: N
+- Claim status: unchanged | sharpened | challenged | split
+- Network effect: M new traversal paths
+
+Files Modified:
+- {config.notes_dir}/[older {vocabulary.note} 1].md (inline link added)
+- {config.notes_dir}/[older {vocabulary.note} 2].md (footer connection added)
+- [task file path] ({vocabulary.reweave} section)
+
+Learnings:
+- [Friction]: [description] | NONE
+- [Surprise]: [description] | NONE
+- [Methodology]: [description] | NONE
+- [Process gap]: [description] | NONE
+
+Queue Updates:
+- Advance phase: {vocabulary.reweave} -> {vocabulary.verify}
+=== END HANDOFF ===
+```
+
+### Task File Update (when invoked via ralph loop)
+
+When running in handoff mode via /ralph, the prompt includes the task file path. After completing the workflow, update the `## {vocabulary.reweave}` section of that task file with:
+- Older {vocabulary.note_plural} updated and why
+- Claim status (unchanged/sharpened/challenged/split)
+- Network effect summary
+
+**Critical:** The handoff block is OUTPUT, not a replacement for the workflow. Do the full {vocabulary.reweave} workflow first, update task file, then format results as handoff.
+
+### Queue Update (interactive execution)
+
+When running interactively (NOT via /ralph), YOU must advance the phase in the queue. /ralph handles this automatically, but interactive sessions do not.
+
+**After completing the workflow, advance the phase:**
+
+```bash
+# get timestamp
+TIMESTAMP=$(date -u +"%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ")
+
+# advance phase (current_phase -> next, append to completed_phases)
+# NEXT_PHASE is the phase after reweave in phase_order (i.e., verify)
+jq '(.tasks[] | select(.id=="TASK_ID")).current_phase = "{vocabulary.verify}" |
+    (.tasks[] | select(.id=="TASK_ID")).completed_phases += ["{vocabulary.reweave}"]' \
+    {config.ops_dir}/queue/queue.json > tmp.json && mv tmp.json {config.ops_dir}/queue/queue.json
+```
+
+The handoff block's "Queue Updates" section is not just output — it is your own todo list when running interactively.
+
+## Pipeline Chaining
+
+After reweaving completes, output the next step based on `{config.ops_dir}/config.yaml` pipeline.chaining mode:
+
+- **manual:** Output "Next: {vocabulary.cmd_verify} [{vocabulary.note}]" — user decides when to proceed
+- **suggested:** Output next step AND advance task queue entry to `current_phase: "{vocabulary.verify}"`
+- **automatic:** Queue entry advanced and verification proceeds immediately
+
+The chaining output uses domain-native command names from the derivation manifest.