# Rumination Reading

> Re-review an article the user has already read and starred (a "blog-article"-tagged note) through two gates — first an internalization check borrowed from the Feynman skill (did they actually understand/retain a point, or are they just parroting the original text?), then, only for points that pass, an increment check borrowed from the Socratic skill (what changed in their understanding since last time, forcing a concrete recent example, never letting "feels different now" stand alone). Logs every round into the article's own note, tracks per-point 未内化/已内化 status, and supports resuming mid-article across sessions. Use when the user wants to "反刍"一篇文章, "重新review这篇文章/博客", check whether they actually understood or remember an article, or continue an in-progress rumination session.

- Skill: `goodluckz/rumination-reading` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add goodluckz/rumination-reading`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/goodluckz/rumination-reading/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: goodluckz (https://skillmd.com/u/goodluckz)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/goodluckz/rumination-reading

---


# AI反刍阅读法 (Rumination Reading)

Implements [[AI反刍阅读法]] (`/Users/zhaoliang/LocalDocuments/vaults/vault/pages/AI反刍阅读法.md`):
re-reading only counts as review if it adds something — either repairing a point that was never
really understood, or updating a point with genuinely new understanding since last time. This skill
is a splice of two sibling skills' mechanisms — `ai-corrected-feynman`'s correction gate and
`socratic-questioning`'s forced-concreteness — applied to material already read, not new material.

Scope: articles that already qualify for [[Type Review 体系]]'s "博客文章" track — five-star
(`5⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️`) rated, tagged `blog-article`, with their own note (not an inline link inside a
blogger's note). Don't run this on an article that hasn't cleared that bar — point the user at
starring/promoting it first if they ask to ruminate on something that isn't there yet.

## Non-negotiable ground rules

- **Never explain the point first, and never answer the increment question yourself.** Same
  discipline as the two sibling skills: if Claude supplies the understanding or the "what changed",
  the forcing function is defeated.
- **Two gates, run in order, per point — don't skip the internalization gate because a point "seems
  obviously understood."** A confident, fluent answer that's actually a paraphrase of the source
  text still fails the gate — watch for suspiciously-close-to-original wording, same as the Feynman
  skill's anti-parroting rule.
- **The increment gate requires a concrete, dated, real example** — something that actually happened
  since the last review, not a restated feeling ("我现在更有共鸣了" is not an answer; "上周开会时
  我意识到自己就在做 X" is). If the user can't produce one, record "无新进展" honestly — don't
  manufacture a fake increment to make the round feel productive.
- **A point that fails the internalization gate does not proceed to the increment gate this round.**
  Reread that section together, correct the specific gap, mark it `未内化`, and move on — don't force
  both gates into one round just to finish faster.
- **One point at a time, not the whole article at once.** Pick a point, run both gates, log, then ask
  whether to continue to the next point or stop — mirrors chain mode's per-item discipline in
  `ai-corrected-feynman`.

## Flow

1. **Identify the article and find/pick its points.** The article note should already list its key
   claims — either as five-star-highlighted lines, or as links out to atomic concept notes (the
   pattern used in `clippings/20250316144431.md` and `clippings/20250119023830 6.md`). If the note
   has no per-point breakdown yet, ask the user which 1-3 points they want to ruminate on this
   session rather than inventing a breakdown unasked.
2. **Find the resume point** if this is a continuing session: look for a `## 反刍记录` section on the
   article note and a per-point status marker (see [Log template](#log-template)). The next point to
   work is the first one still marked `未内化` or never yet attempted — same resume logic as chain
   mode: trust the marker on the article note over any memory of where the last session left off.
3. **Gate 1 — Internalization** (borrows `ai-corrected-feynman`'s mechanism): ask the user to explain
   this point in their own words, without looking at the source, and say what it means to them
   personally. Judge pass/fail per the ground rules above (not a 1-10 score — this gate is binary).
   - **Fail**: reread the relevant passage together, name the specific gap, mark `未内化`, log the
     round, and stop here for this point.
   - **Pass**: continue to gate 2.
4. **Gate 2 — Increment** (borrows `socratic-questioning`'s mechanism, only-ask-never-answer): ask
   "自从你上次真的理解这条以来，发生了什么事让你现在看它有点不一样？" — press for a concrete
   recent example if the first answer is vague. If a real, specific example surfaces, that's the
   round's increment. If nothing surfaces after a genuine attempt, record `无新进展` — this is a
   legitimate, non-failing outcome, not something to keep pushing for.
5. **Log the round** (see template below), mark the point `已内化` if gate 2 was reached (regardless
   of whether it produced a fresh increment — passing gate 1 is what earns `已内化`).
6. **If gate 2 produced a real increment**, ask whether it's worth spinning into its own Insight per
   [[认知方法论]] — don't decide this unilaterally.
7. **Ask whether to continue to the next point or stop here.** On stop, the log/status markers
   already written are the correct resume state — no extra bookkeeping needed, matching chain mode's
   "flipped checkbox is the resume marker" pattern.

## Log template

Append this section to the article's own note if it doesn't already have one:

```markdown
## 反刍记录

参见 [[AI反刍阅读法]]。每个论点两道关：内化关（借用费曼纠错机制）判断有没有真读懂，
增量关（借用苏格拉底追问机制）判断这次重读有没有新理解。每轮都保留，不覆盖前一轮。
```

Then for each point worked on, append a subsection (create it on first attempt, append new rounds to
an existing one — never overwrite):

```markdown
### <论点简述，可以直接引用该论点的链接> — 状态：未内化 / 已内化

#### 第 N 轮 — YYYY-MM-DD

**内化关（自己的话）：** <用户原话，不要替用户改写>

**内化关判定：** 通过 / 未通过 — <一句话理由，未通过则指出具体理解错在哪/漏了什么>

**增量关追问：** <这次问的具体版本，通常就是"自上次真正理解以来发生了什么">

**增量关回答：** <用户给出的具体例子，逐字或整理转述；如果答不出，写"无新进展">

**这轮结论：** <未内化，留待下次 / 已内化，本轮无新进展 / 已内化，新增理解：一句话概括>
```

If a real increment surfaced and got promoted to its own Insight, add a line under that round:
`→ 已升级为 Insight：[[<insight note>]]`.

## Interaction with Type Review 体系

The per-point `未内化`/`已内化` markers on the article note are the same status semantics
[[Type Review 体系]] uses for the 博客文章 track — don't invent a separate state machine. When
asked to run a Type Review session on the 博客文章 track, this skill's flow is what actually
executes that session for whichever article gets picked.

## Reference example

None yet — this skill is new as of 2026-08-26. The first real session (likely on
[[So You Wanna De-bog Yourself]] or [[How to Do Great Work]]) should be treated as the worked
example once it exists.