Compile Tech Notes
Overview
Use this skill as the top-level router for report, brief, summary, memo, and note-compilation work.
Turn scattered material into a deliverable that someone can act on, review later, share internally, or promote into durable knowledge.
Prefer a local-first workflow: start from the user's raw material, search externally only when a gap blocks a confident explanation, and keep every important claim traceable.
Write in the user's working language unless asked otherwise.
When writing in Chinese, preserve important English product names, APIs, or repository terms in parentheses when that reduces ambiguity.
This skill is no longer only for “技术学习笔记”.
It should now behave like a 报告 / 秘书 front door: choose the right report shape first, then synthesize.
Boundaries
Do not use this skill for blank-page ideation.
If there is no stable topic, no central question, or no usable material, switch to ideation first.
Do not use this skill for pure search when the user only wants links or discovery and no compiled artifact.
Use $web-finder first, then come back if a report or digest is needed.
Do not use this skill for pure project delivery when the user actually needs execution ownership, not a document artifact.
Use $delivery-conductor when the main problem is driving work, not compiling it.
If the task is mostly paper reading, novelty pressure testing, or experiment planning, use $research-router to pick a narrower research skill.
Do not use this skill for communication-style coaching from meetings.
If the user wants to understand facilitation style, filler words, conflict avoidance, or leadership patterns, use meeting-insights-analyzer.
Do not promise a polished article, brief, or recommendation when the evidence only supports an outline or a gap memo.
Downgrade early instead of filling gaps with smooth prose.
Deliverable Modes
Choose one primary deliverable using references/deliverable-taxonomy.md:
task-status-update
meeting-secretary-memo
feasibility-brief
material-digest
systematic-learning-note
blog-style-synthesis
Default Posture
- Lock one primary deliverable.
Do not write before you know what artifact you are building.
Default tendencies:
- meeting transcript or sync notes ->
meeting-secretary-memo
- task history, work log, checkpoint notes ->
task-status-update
- many links/docs/screenshots needing整理 ->
material-digest
- “should we do this” / “值得吗” / “怎么选” ->
feasibility-brief
- technical concept consolidation ->
systematic-learning-note
- public-facing shareout with strong evidence ->
blog-style-synthesis
Treat the user's local material as the anchor source.
Use local notes, transcripts, screenshots, pasted text, and previously compiled notes to define the topic before browsing outward.
Separate evidence from organization.
The source says what happened; the artifact explains how to organize it.
Never hide the difference between fact, judgment, inference, extension, and operational follow-up.
Optimize for reuse, not just first-pass readability.
The draft should help the reader return later, act on it, or use it as the next decision surface.
Prefer strong intermediate objects over early prose.
If the contract, source map, action register, or outline is weak, keep working there.
Workflow
1. Lock the job contract
State these items before doing heavy synthesis:
deliverable
target_reader
central_question
time_window
stop_condition
innovation_budget
Good central questions are answerable, narrow, and explanatory.
Bad central questions are just topic labels.
Examples:
- Good:
What problem is this platform actually solving, and how is the workflow organized end to end?
- Good:
How did the speaker's local workflow change the usual cloud-first agent development model?
- Good:
What changed this week, what is still blocked, and what should the reader pay attention to next?
- Good:
What was actually decided in this meeting, and who owns the next actions?
- Bad:
OpenJiuwen
- Bad:
Today's meeting notes
2. Choose the primary deliverable before outlining
Use references/deliverable-taxonomy.md.
Do not keep the deliverable vague as summary.
Force one of the named modes unless the user gave an even more specific artifact.
3. Build the source map first
Create a source inventory before writing.
At minimum, record:
- source id
- title or label
- source type
- local or external
- confidence level
- why it matters
- which section or claim it supports
Use references/evidence-model.md for source tiers, confidence rules, claim classification, and action extraction.
4. Normalize the material
Do the cleanup that turns raw capture into usable material:
- deduplicate repeated passages
- fix obvious ASR noise
- unify names, product terms, and abbreviations
- convert timeline-order notes into concept buckets
- mark unresolved terms instead of guessing
- extract candidate facts and open questions separately
- extract candidate decisions and action items separately when applicable
If the user already has several prior notes on the same topic, treat them as second-order sources rather than raw truth.
Mine them for recurring structure and stable claims, but keep them linked back to the underlying evidence where possible.
5. Decide whether external research is required
Browse only when at least one of these is true:
- the core mechanism is unclear from local material
- terminology is inconsistent or ambiguous
- a strong claim needs validation
- a missing official definition blocks the outline
- a comparison to the broader ecosystem is necessary
- the topic is time-sensitive and current truth matters
- the user explicitly wants a feasibility or current-state brief
When browsing, use this preference order:
- official docs, official repos, source code, or speaker-provided material
- strong engineering or technical blogs with clear authorship and concrete mechanisms
- community discussions and forum threads for implementation experience or edge cases
Never use community discussion as the only support for a factual claim if a higher-confidence source should exist.
If external discovery is the blocker, use $web-finder first and then compile the result here.
6. Produce mandatory intermediate objects
Before drafting full prose, create these objects:
job_contract
source_map
claim_layers
action_and_decision_register when applicable
deliverable_outline
Use references/output-contract.md for the exact object contract and draft templates.
7. Choose the narrative skeleton
Choose one primary skeleton instead of mixing three half-finished ones:
status-and-blockers
Use for work summaries, progress reports, and task records.
decision-and-actions
Use for meeting memos and secretary-style artifacts.
problem-driven
Use when the artifact answers why something exists and what problem it solves.
system-dissection
Use when the artifact explains components, layers, or workflow boundaries.
case-synthesis
Use when the artifact compares examples, materials, or usage styles.
comparison-evaluation
Use when the reader needs to understand tradeoffs between alternatives.
Use references/report-and-synthesis-patterns.md when the skeleton is unclear or when you need a reminder of mature reporting, briefing, and technical writing patterns.
8. Draft the deliverable
Use the skeleton that matches the chosen deliverable.
Do not force every output into a learning-note structure.
General writing rules:
- start with a useful answer, not a timeline replay
- explain why the reader should care before diving into detail
- group by theme, decision, or workstream, not by raw source order
- keep unresolved points visible instead of smoothing them away
- include owner / due / status when the artifact is operational
- include one reusable organizing frame whenever possible
Mode-specific emphasis:
task-status-update
Emphasize changes, evidence, blockers, and next actions.
meeting-secretary-memo
Emphasize decisions, action items, owners, and open questions.
feasibility-brief
Emphasize recommendation, evidence, tradeoffs, risks, and next move.
material-digest
Emphasize source grouping, signal vs. noise, and gaps.
systematic-learning-note
Emphasize central question, mechanisms, tradeoffs, and future reuse.
blog-style-synthesis
Emphasize narrative payoff, conceptual frame, and careful evidence.
9. Use helper skills when they materially improve the artifact
- use
$web-finder when source discovery, recency, or ecosystem sweep is the blocker
- use
$proposal-critique-refine for a critique pass on the outline or draft
- use
$delivery-conductor when the user actually needs the project driven forward, not just documented
- use
$research-router when the underlying work is really literature reading, novelty testing, or experiment design
- use
meeting-insights-analyzer when the task is about communication behavior rather than meeting reporting
10. Run a critique pass before closeout
Use a lightweight $proposal-critique-refine pass on the draft or outline.
Check at least these three lenses:
value: does this artifact help repeated study, action, or alignment, or is it just a prettier summary?
feasibility: are the strongest claims truly supported by sources?
failure-mode: did the structure accidentally inherit a note pattern and pretend it works for all report types?
Repair the most important 1 to 3 issues, then stop.
11. Downgrade gracefully when evidence is thin
If the material is insufficient, do not force a polished report.
Use one of these downgraded outcomes:
checkpoint-only
source-map-plus-gaps
options-and-gaps memo
open-questions memo
When sources conflict, preserve the conflict and label the current best-supported interpretation.
Quality Gates
Do not call the work complete unless the output:
- answers the central question directly
- shows where the important claims came from
- separates fact, judgment, inference, and extension
- preserves decisions and action items as explicit registers when they matter
- contains at least one reusable organizing frame
- contains at least one action-oriented takeaway, checklist, or next-use hint
- avoids presenting unsupported extrapolation as fact
Resources
Read only the reference that matches the current blocker:
- references/deliverable-taxonomy.md
Use for choosing the primary artifact and avoiding note-shape overfitting.
- references/evidence-model.md
Use for source tiers, confidence rules, claim-layer classification, action extraction, and conflict handling.
- references/output-contract.md
Use for the intermediate objects, source-map fields, action registers, and deliverable templates.
- references/report-and-synthesis-patterns.md
Use for mature briefing, report, note, and synthesis patterns drawn from existing skills and technical writing references.
1---2name: compile-tech-notes3description: Compile fragmented local and external materials into report-grade deliverables with local-first evidence mapping, adaptive web discovery, and explicit separation of facts, judgments, inferences, decisions, and next actions. Use when Codex needs to turn meeting notes, transcripts, screenshots, task history, official docs, GitHub repos, blogs, forum threads, or personal notes into one of: (1) task update or work summary, (2) meeting/secretary memo with decisions and action items, (3) feasibility or recommendation brief, (4) material digest or source pack, (5) systematic technical learning note, or (6) blog-style synthesis. Acts as a report/secretary front door: pick the right deliverable, route to search or critique helpers when needed, and keep major claims traceable.4---56# Compile Tech Notes78## Overview910Use this skill as the top-level router for report, brief, summary, memo, and note-compilation work.11Turn scattered material into a deliverable that someone can act on, review later, share internally, or promote into durable knowledge.1213Prefer a local-first workflow: start from the user's raw material, search externally only when a gap blocks a confident explanation, and keep every important claim traceable.1415Write in the user's working language unless asked otherwise.16When writing in Chinese, preserve important English product names, APIs, or repository terms in parentheses when that reduces ambiguity.1718This skill is no longer only for “技术学习笔记”.19It should now behave like a `报告 / 秘书` front door: choose the right report shape first, then synthesize.2021## Boundaries2223Do not use this skill for blank-page ideation.24If there is no stable topic, no central question, or no usable material, switch to ideation first.2526Do not use this skill for pure search when the user only wants links or discovery and no compiled artifact.27Use `$web-finder` first, then come back if a report or digest is needed.2829Do not use this skill for pure project delivery when the user actually needs execution ownership, not a document artifact.30Use `$delivery-conductor` when the main problem is driving work, not compiling it.3132If the task is mostly paper reading, novelty pressure testing, or experiment planning, use `$research-router` to pick a narrower research skill.3334Do not use this skill for communication-style coaching from meetings.35If the user wants to understand facilitation style, filler words, conflict avoidance, or leadership patterns, use `meeting-insights-analyzer`.3637Do not promise a polished article, brief, or recommendation when the evidence only supports an outline or a gap memo.38Downgrade early instead of filling gaps with smooth prose.3940## Deliverable Modes4142Choose one primary deliverable using [references/deliverable-taxonomy.md](./references/deliverable-taxonomy.md):4344- `task-status-update`45- `meeting-secretary-memo`46- `feasibility-brief`47- `material-digest`48- `systematic-learning-note`49- `blog-style-synthesis`5051## Default Posture52531. Lock one primary deliverable.54Do not write before you know what artifact you are building.5556Default tendencies:5758- meeting transcript or sync notes -> `meeting-secretary-memo`59- task history, work log, checkpoint notes -> `task-status-update`60- many links/docs/screenshots needing整理 -> `material-digest`61- “should we do this” / “值得吗” / “怎么选” -> `feasibility-brief`62- technical concept consolidation -> `systematic-learning-note`63- public-facing shareout with strong evidence -> `blog-style-synthesis`64652. Treat the user's local material as the anchor source.66Use local notes, transcripts, screenshots, pasted text, and previously compiled notes to define the topic before browsing outward.67683. Separate evidence from organization.69The source says what happened; the artifact explains how to organize it.70Never hide the difference between fact, judgment, inference, extension, and operational follow-up.71724. Optimize for reuse, not just first-pass readability.73The draft should help the reader return later, act on it, or use it as the next decision surface.74755. Prefer strong intermediate objects over early prose.76If the contract, source map, action register, or outline is weak, keep working there.7778## Workflow7980### 1. Lock the job contract8182State these items before doing heavy synthesis:8384- `deliverable`85- `target_reader`86- `central_question`87- `time_window`88- `stop_condition`89- `innovation_budget`9091Good central questions are answerable, narrow, and explanatory.92Bad central questions are just topic labels.9394Examples:9596- Good: `What problem is this platform actually solving, and how is the workflow organized end to end?`97- Good: `How did the speaker's local workflow change the usual cloud-first agent development model?`98- Good: `What changed this week, what is still blocked, and what should the reader pay attention to next?`99- Good: `What was actually decided in this meeting, and who owns the next actions?`100- Bad: `OpenJiuwen`101- Bad: `Today's meeting notes`102103### 2. Choose the primary deliverable before outlining104105Use [references/deliverable-taxonomy.md](./references/deliverable-taxonomy.md).106Do not keep the deliverable vague as `summary`.107Force one of the named modes unless the user gave an even more specific artifact.108109### 3. Build the source map first110111Create a source inventory before writing.112At minimum, record:113114- source id115- title or label116- source type117- local or external118- confidence level119- why it matters120- which section or claim it supports121122Use [references/evidence-model.md](./references/evidence-model.md) for source tiers, confidence rules, claim classification, and action extraction.123124### 4. Normalize the material125126Do the cleanup that turns raw capture into usable material:127128- deduplicate repeated passages129- fix obvious ASR noise130- unify names, product terms, and abbreviations131- convert timeline-order notes into concept buckets132- mark unresolved terms instead of guessing133- extract candidate facts and open questions separately134- extract candidate decisions and action items separately when applicable135136If the user already has several prior notes on the same topic, treat them as second-order sources rather than raw truth.137Mine them for recurring structure and stable claims, but keep them linked back to the underlying evidence where possible.138139### 5. Decide whether external research is required140141Browse only when at least one of these is true:142143- the core mechanism is unclear from local material144- terminology is inconsistent or ambiguous145- a strong claim needs validation146- a missing official definition blocks the outline147- a comparison to the broader ecosystem is necessary148- the topic is time-sensitive and current truth matters149- the user explicitly wants a feasibility or current-state brief150151When browsing, use this preference order:1521531. official docs, official repos, source code, or speaker-provided material1542. strong engineering or technical blogs with clear authorship and concrete mechanisms1553. community discussions and forum threads for implementation experience or edge cases156157Never use community discussion as the only support for a factual claim if a higher-confidence source should exist.158159If external discovery is the blocker, use `$web-finder` first and then compile the result here.160161### 6. Produce mandatory intermediate objects162163Before drafting full prose, create these objects:164165- `job_contract`166- `source_map`167- `claim_layers`168- `action_and_decision_register` when applicable169- `deliverable_outline`170171Use [references/output-contract.md](./references/output-contract.md) for the exact object contract and draft templates.172173### 7. Choose the narrative skeleton174175Choose one primary skeleton instead of mixing three half-finished ones:176177- `status-and-blockers`178 Use for work summaries, progress reports, and task records.179- `decision-and-actions`180 Use for meeting memos and secretary-style artifacts.181- `problem-driven`182 Use when the artifact answers why something exists and what problem it solves.183- `system-dissection`184 Use when the artifact explains components, layers, or workflow boundaries.185- `case-synthesis`186 Use when the artifact compares examples, materials, or usage styles.187- `comparison-evaluation`188 Use when the reader needs to understand tradeoffs between alternatives.189190Use [references/report-and-synthesis-patterns.md](./references/report-and-synthesis-patterns.md) when the skeleton is unclear or when you need a reminder of mature reporting, briefing, and technical writing patterns.191192### 8. Draft the deliverable193194Use the skeleton that matches the chosen deliverable.195Do not force every output into a learning-note structure.196197General writing rules:198199- start with a useful answer, not a timeline replay200- explain why the reader should care before diving into detail201- group by theme, decision, or workstream, not by raw source order202- keep unresolved points visible instead of smoothing them away203- include owner / due / status when the artifact is operational204- include one reusable organizing frame whenever possible205206Mode-specific emphasis:207208- `task-status-update`209 Emphasize changes, evidence, blockers, and next actions.210- `meeting-secretary-memo`211 Emphasize decisions, action items, owners, and open questions.212- `feasibility-brief`213 Emphasize recommendation, evidence, tradeoffs, risks, and next move.214- `material-digest`215 Emphasize source grouping, signal vs. noise, and gaps.216- `systematic-learning-note`217 Emphasize central question, mechanisms, tradeoffs, and future reuse.218- `blog-style-synthesis`219 Emphasize narrative payoff, conceptual frame, and careful evidence.220221### 9. Use helper skills when they materially improve the artifact222223- use `$web-finder` when source discovery, recency, or ecosystem sweep is the blocker224- use `$proposal-critique-refine` for a critique pass on the outline or draft225- use `$delivery-conductor` when the user actually needs the project driven forward, not just documented226- use `$research-router` when the underlying work is really literature reading, novelty testing, or experiment design227- use `meeting-insights-analyzer` when the task is about communication behavior rather than meeting reporting228229### 10. Run a critique pass before closeout230231Use a lightweight `$proposal-critique-refine` pass on the draft or outline.232Check at least these three lenses:233234- `value`: does this artifact help repeated study, action, or alignment, or is it just a prettier summary?235- `feasibility`: are the strongest claims truly supported by sources?236- `failure-mode`: did the structure accidentally inherit a note pattern and pretend it works for all report types?237238Repair the most important 1 to 3 issues, then stop.239240### 11. Downgrade gracefully when evidence is thin241242If the material is insufficient, do not force a polished report.243Use one of these downgraded outcomes:244245- `checkpoint-only`246- `source-map-plus-gaps`247- `options-and-gaps memo`248- `open-questions memo`249250When sources conflict, preserve the conflict and label the current best-supported interpretation.251252## Quality Gates253254Do not call the work complete unless the output:255256- answers the central question directly257- shows where the important claims came from258- separates fact, judgment, inference, and extension259- preserves decisions and action items as explicit registers when they matter260- contains at least one reusable organizing frame261- contains at least one action-oriented takeaway, checklist, or next-use hint262- avoids presenting unsupported extrapolation as fact263264## Resources265266Read only the reference that matches the current blocker:267268- [references/deliverable-taxonomy.md](./references/deliverable-taxonomy.md)269 Use for choosing the primary artifact and avoiding note-shape overfitting.270- [references/evidence-model.md](./references/evidence-model.md)271 Use for source tiers, confidence rules, claim-layer classification, action extraction, and conflict handling.272- [references/output-contract.md](./references/output-contract.md)273 Use for the intermediate objects, source-map fields, action registers, and deliverable templates.274- [references/report-and-synthesis-patterns.md](./references/report-and-synthesis-patterns.md)275 Use for mature briefing, report, note, and synthesis patterns drawn from existing skills and technical writing references.