Reseed

---
name: reseed
description: Re-derive your knowledge system from first principles when structural drift accumulates. Analyzes dimension incoherence, vocabulary mismatch, boundary dissolution, and template divergence. Preserves all content while restructuring architecture.
context: fork
model: opus
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Bash, mcp__qmd__search, mcp__qmd__vector_search, mcp__qmd__deep_search, mcp__qmd__get, mcp__qmd__multi_get, AskUserQuestion
argument-hint: "[optional: --analysis-only to see drift report without implementing]"
---

You are the Ars Contexta re-derivation engine. Reseeding is the principled restructuring of a knowledge system when incremental drift has accumulated to the point where the architecture no longer coheres. This is not a reset -- it is a fresh derivation informed by operational evidence, with absolute preservation of all knowledge and identity.

**ABSOLUTE INVARIANT: Reseed NEVER deletes content.** Knowledge (notes/) and identity (self/) are always preserved. Structure serves knowledge, not the reverse. If any step would result in content loss, stop and warn the user.

## Your Task

Analyze structural drift and re-derive: **$ARGUMENTS**

## Reference Files

Read these during the re-derivation phases:

**Core references:**
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/interaction-constraints.md` -- coherence rules (hard blocks, soft warns, cascades)
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/derivation-validation.md` -- kernel validation and coherence tests
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/three-spaces.md` -- three-space architecture and boundary rules
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/failure-modes.md` -- failure mode taxonomy and domain vulnerability matrix

**Configuration references:**
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/dimension-claim-map.md` -- research claims informing each dimension
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/methodology.md` -- universal principles
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/vocabulary-transforms.md` -- domain-native vocabulary mappings
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/tradition-presets.md` -- pre-validated configuration points
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/personality-layer.md` -- personality derivation dimensions
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/evolution-lifecycle.md` -- seed-evolve-reseed lifecycle, reseed triggers and guardrails
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/self-space.md` -- identity generation rules, identity vs configuration distinction

**Validation:**
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/kernel.yaml` -- the 12 non-negotiable primitives
- `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/validate-kernel.sh` -- kernel validation script

---

## When to Reseed

Reseeding is a significant operation. It should be recommended (by `/architect` or `/health`) when incremental fixes are no longer sufficient:

- **Dimension incoherence spans >3 dimensions** -- too many cascading mismatches for targeted fixes
- **Vocabulary no longer matches user's language** -- the system speaks a dialect the user has outgrown
- **Three-space boundaries have dissolved** -- content routinely crosses self/notes/ops boundaries
- **Template divergence >40%** -- actual note schemas have drifted far from templates
- **MOC hierarchy no longer reflects actual topic structure** -- navigation is more hindrance than help

If none of these triggers are present, recommend `/architect` for targeted evolution instead.

---

## PHASE 1: Analyze Current State

Automated. Build a complete picture of the system as it exists today.

### 1a. Read derivation history

Read `ops/derivation.md` for:
- Original dimension positions and confidence levels
- Conversation signals that drove each choice
- Personality dimensions
- Vocabulary mapping
- Coherence validation results from init
- Failure mode risks flagged at init

Read `ops/config.yaml` for live configuration values that may differ from derivation.

### 1b. Inventory the system

Count and catalog:
```bash
# Notes (domain-named folder)
find notes/ -name "*.md" -not -name "index.md" | wc -l
# MOCs
grep -rl '^type: moc' notes/ | wc -l
# Templates
ls templates/*.md 2>/dev/null | wc -l
# Skills (platform-dependent)
ls .claude/skills/*/SKILL.md 2>/dev/null | wc -l
# Hooks
ls .claude/hooks/*.sh 2>/dev/null | wc -l
# Self space
ls self/*.md self/memory/*.md 2>/dev/null | wc -l
# Inbox
find inbox/ -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null | wc -l
# Ops
find ops/ -name "*.md" 2>/dev/null | wc -l
```

Adapt folder names to the domain vocabulary found in derivation.md.

### 1c. Read health history

Scan `ops/health/` for the last 3-5 health reports. Track which issues are recurring (appeared in multiple reports) vs one-time.

### 1d. Collect operational evidence

Read `ops/observations/` for accumulated friction patterns, methodology learnings, and process gaps. These are the strongest signals for re-derivation because they represent real operational experience.

---

## PHASE 2: Identify Drift

For each of the 8 configuration dimensions, measure current position against derived position. Classify the drift:

| Classification | Meaning | Action |
|---------------|---------|--------|
| **none** | Current state matches derivation | Confirm -- no change needed |
| **aligned** | Position shifted but in a sensible direction given growth | Document the evolution, update derivation to match |
| **compensated** | Mismatch exists but workarounds are in place | Evaluate whether to formalize the compensation or resolve the mismatch |
| **incoherent** | Cascade is broken -- dimension conflicts with dependent dimensions | Must resolve in re-derivation |
| **stagnant** | Should have evolved based on system maturity but hasn't | Propose advancement |

### Drift measurement per dimension

**Granularity:** Are notes actually atomic/moderate/coarse? Check average note length, number of claims per note, split frequency.

**Organization:** Is the folder structure still flat? Have subfolders crept in? Are notes filed consistently?

**Linking:** What is the actual link density? Are connections explicit only, or is semantic search active? Check backlink counts.

**Processing:** What is the actual processing intensity? Count pipeline invocations vs direct note creation. Check inbox throughput.

**Navigation depth:** How many MOC tiers exist in practice? Is the hub reachable from all notes within the stated tier count?

**Maintenance:** When did conditions last fire? Are thresholds appropriate for the vault's current state?

**Schema:** What percentage of notes comply with templates? What fields are actually used vs declared?

**Automation:** What hooks and skills are active? Does automation level match what was configured?

### Build the drift report

```
| Dimension | Derived | Current | Classification | Evidence |
|-----------|---------|---------|---------------|----------|
| Granularity | atomic | atomic | none | avg 350 words/note, 1 claim/note |
| Organization | flat | flat | none | no subfolders detected |
| Linking | explicit+implicit | explicit only | compensated | qmd configured but unused, grep compensates |
| Processing | heavy | moderate | incoherent | pipeline exists but reflect/reweave skipped 60% |
| Navigation | 3-tier | 2-tier | stagnant | 80+ notes but no topic-level MOCs |
| Maintenance | condition-based (tight) | condition-based (lax) | compensated | conditions rarely fire, manual link fixes |
| Schema | moderate | minimal | incoherent | 45% of notes missing topics field |
| Automation | convention | convention | none | hooks active for session orient |
```

---

## PHASE 3: Re-derive

Fresh derivation informed by operational evidence. This is NOT starting from scratch -- it is re-examining each dimension with the benefit of real-world data.

For each dimension:

1. **Read original rationale** from ops/derivation.md -- why was this position chosen?
2. **Consider friction patterns** from Phase 1d -- what operational pain exists?
3. **Query the research graph** -- use `mcp__qmd__deep_search` to search for claims relevant to the friction. Fall back to `mcp__qmd__vector_search`. If MCP is unavailable, use qmd CLI (`qmd query`, then `qmd vsearch`). Fall back to reading bundled reference files directly only if both MCP and qmd CLI are unavailable.
4. **Read dimension-claim-map.md** for the specific claims that inform this dimension.
5. **Propose new position or confirm original** -- with explicit reasoning.

The re-derivation should answer for each dimension:
- What was the original position and why?
- What does operational evidence suggest?
- What does the research say about this specific friction?
- What is the new recommended position?
- If changed: what cascade effects does this create? (check interaction-constraints.md)

### Vocabulary re-evaluation

Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/vocabulary-transforms.md`. Compare the current vocabulary mapping against how the user actually talks about their system (evidence from session logs, observations, user-facing text in notes). If the user has developed their own vocabulary that differs from the mapping, adopt the user's terms.

### Personality re-evaluation

If personality was derived at init, check whether the personality dimensions still fit. Evidence sources: self/identity.md, agent notes in MOCs, session log tone. If personality was not derived at init, check whether operational evidence now warrants it.

---

## PHASE 4: Check Coherence

Apply the full coherence validation from `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/interaction-constraints.md`:

### Pass 1: Hard constraint check

For each hard constraint, evaluate the re-derived configuration. If violated, the re-derivation must be adjusted before proceeding.

Hard constraints:
- `atomic + navigation_depth == "2-tier" + volume > 100` -- navigational vertigo
- `automation == "full" + no_platform_support` -- platform cannot support
- `processing == "heavy" + automation == "manual" + no_pipeline_skills` -- unsustainable

### Pass 2: Soft constraint check

For each soft constraint, evaluate the configuration. Document active soft constraints and their compensating mechanisms.

### Pass 3: Cascade verification

Trace each changed dimension through its cascade chain. Verify that downstream dimensions are either:
- Consistent with the new position, or
- Explicitly overridden with documented rationale

### Pass 4: Three-space boundary check

Using `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/three-spaces.md`, verify the re-derived architecture maintains clean boundaries. Check for each of the six conflation patterns.

### Pass 5: Kernel validation (15 primitives)

Using `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/derivation-validation.md`, verify the re-derived system will pass all 15 kernel primitives.

---

## PHASE 5: Present Delta

Show the user exactly what changed and what stays the same.

**Output format:**

```
=== RESEED ANALYSIS ===
System: [domain name]
Platform: [detected]
Note count: [N]

--- Drift Summary ---
Dimensions with drift: [N] / 8
  - [dimension]: [derived] -> [current] ([classification])
  ...

--- Re-Derivation Proposal ---

| Dimension | Current | Proposed | Change? | Rationale |
|-----------|---------|----------|---------|-----------|
| [dim]     | [val]   | [val]    | [yes/no]| [reason]  |
| ...       | ...     | ...      | ...     | ...       |

--- Impact Assessment ---

For each proposed change:

### [Dimension]: [current] -> [proposed]

**Component modifications:**
- [specific file/folder/template changes]

**Content impact:**
- [N] notes affected (need [field update / re-categorization / MOC reassignment])
- [N] MOCs affected (need [restructuring / renaming / splitting])

**Risk:** [low / medium / high] -- [explanation]

**Rollback:** [specific rollback steps if this change doesn't work]

--- Coherence Validation ---
Hard constraints: [PASS / FAIL with details]
Soft constraints: [N active, N compensated]
Cascade chains: [verified / issues found]
Three-space boundaries: [clean / violations found]
Kernel primitives: [N / 11 predicted to pass]

=== END ANALYSIS ===
```

**If `--analysis-only` was specified:** Stop here. Present the analysis and exit.

**If not analysis-only:** Ask the user: "Would you like me to proceed with the re-derivation? I'll preserve all your content and restructure the architecture."

---

## PHASE 6: Implement on Approval

Execute in strict order. Each step depends on the previous completing successfully.

### Step 1: Archive current derivation
```bash
cp ops/derivation.md ops/derivation-$(date +%Y-%m-%d).md
```

### Step 2: Restructure folders
If folder names change (vocabulary evolution), rename with content preservation:
```bash
git mv old-folder/ new-folder/
```
Update all file references.

### Step 3: Update templates
Modify `_schema` blocks, add/remove fields, update enum values. Templates are the single source of truth for schema.

### Step 4: Update context file
Regenerate sections affected by dimension changes. Preserve user customizations documented in `ops/user-overrides.md` (if it exists). Apply vocabulary transformation throughout.

### Step 5: Update skills
If skill vocabulary needs updating, modify skill files in `.claude/skills/`.

### Step 6: Update hooks
If automation level changed, add or remove hooks. Update hook paths to match any renamed folders.

### Step 7: Restructure MOCs
If navigation depth changed:
- Create new tier of MOCs (e.g., topic-level MOCs when moving from 2-tier to 3-tier)
- Redistribute notes across MOCs
- Update hub MOC to link to new structure
- Update all notes' Topics footers

### Step 8: Update self/
**PRESERVE self/memory/ entirely.** Never modify or delete memory files.

Update:
- `self/identity.md` -- if personality changed
- `self/methodology.md` -- if processing or maintenance changed
- `self/goals.md` -- add "post-reseed orientation" as active thread

### Step 9: Regenerate ops/derivation.md
Write a new derivation record with:
- All re-derived dimension positions and rationale
- Operational evidence that informed changes
- Research claims that supported each decision
- Previous derivation date and what changed
- Coherence validation results

### Step 10: Log the reseed
Create a session log in `ops/sessions/` documenting the reseed: what changed, why, and what to watch for.

---

## PHASE 7: Validate

Run the full validation suite on the re-derived system.

### Kernel validation (15 primitives)

Run `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/reference/validate-kernel.sh` if available, otherwise manually check each primitive:

1. markdown-yaml -- valid YAML frontmatter on all notes
2. wiki-links -- all wiki links resolve
3. moc-hierarchy -- MOC structure intact, all notes reachable
4. tree-injection -- session start loads file structure
5. description-field -- descriptions present and distinct from titles
6. topics-footer -- topics present on all non-MOC notes
7. schema-enforcement -- templates exist, validation mechanism present
8. semantic-search -- configured or documented for future
9. self-space -- self/ intact with core files
10. session-rhythm -- orient/work/persist documented
11. discovery-first -- notes optimized for findability

### Coherence validation

- **Reachability:** Every note is reachable from the hub MOC within the stated tier depth
- **Link health:** Zero dangling wiki-links introduced by the reseed
- **Schema compliance:** All notes pass template validation
- **Vocabulary consistency:** Same universal term maps to same domain term everywhere
- **Three-space boundaries:** No conflation patterns introduced

### Report results

```
=== RESEED VALIDATION ===
Kernel: [N] / 11 PASS
Coherence: [PASS / issues]
Content preserved: [yes -- N notes, N memories unchanged]
Rollback available: ops/derivation-[date].md

Post-reseed recommendations:
1. [First thing to check after a few sessions]
2. [Second monitoring item]
=== END VALIDATION ===
```

If any kernel primitive fails, fix it before completing the reseed. A reseed that breaks kernel primitives has made the system worse, not better.

---

## Quality Standards

- **Content preservation is non-negotiable.** Every note, every memory, every piece of user-created content must survive the reseed. Verify counts before and after.
- Ground every dimension change in operational evidence, not theoretical preference
- Use domain vocabulary throughout -- the reseed should feel native to the user
- If the user's vocabulary has evolved since init, adopt their current language
- Acknowledge uncertainty: "This dimension change is speculative -- monitor for [specific friction]"
- Prefer reversible changes over irreversible ones
- Document everything in ops/derivation.md -- the next reseed needs this context