# Ce Compound Refresh > Refresh stale .ai/solutions learnings against current code. Use for "refresh my learnings", audit stale learnings, or consolidate overlapping docs. - Skill: `sitaggart/ce-compound-refresh` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add sitaggart/ce-compound-refresh` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sitaggart/ce-compound-refresh/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: SiTaggart (https://skillmd.com/u/sitaggart) - Updated: 2026-09-10 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sitaggart/ce-compound-refresh --- # Compound Refresh Maintain the quality of `.ai/solutions/` over time. Review existing learnings against the current codebase, then refresh any derived pattern docs that depend on them. ## Mode Detection Check `$ARGUMENTS` for `mode:headless`. If present, strip it (the remainder is the scope hint) and run headless. ### Headless No user interaction, ever — these rules own all headless behavior for the run: - **Never pause for input.** Apply all safe actions directly: Keep, Update, Consolidate, auto-Delete, and Replace with sufficient evidence. If a write succeeds, record it as **applied**; if it fails (e.g., permission denied), record it as **recommended** and continue. - **Mark stale when uncertain.** Genuinely ambiguous classification, insufficient Replace evidence, memory-only drift with no codebase corroboration, or substantive inbound citations → add `status: stale`, `stale_reason`, `stale_date` to the frontmatter instead of acting. Err toward stale-marking over incorrect action. - **Scope:** no hint → process everything; a hint that matches nothing → report the miss and exit without widening. - **Bootstrap requests** default to the refresh cycle (vocabulary is seeded within Phase 4.5); note in the report that a standalone repo-wide bootstrap was not run. - **The report is the sole deliverable** — self-contained, printed in full, with **Applied** and **Recommended** sections (see Output Format). ## CONCEPTS.md bootstrap requests If invoked specifically to create `CONCEPTS.md` ("build the concept map", "set up shared vocabulary"), disambiguate with one blocking question (fall back to a question in chat when the tool is unavailable): 1. **Create CONCEPTS.md** — skip the classification phases. Read `../ce-compound/references/concepts-vocabulary.md` and follow its Seed goal and Scope-of-a-seed (repo-wide) rules: seed the project's core domain nouns from the declared domain model, each meeting the qualifying bar. Write the preamble (Phase 4.5), cluster per the organization rules, run the Discoverability Check, then enter Phase 5 to commit — do not leave the bootstrap uncommitted. 2. **Run a refresh cycle** — proceed normally; `CONCEPTS.md` is seeded (if absent) and reconciled in Phase 4.5. ## Interaction Principles (interactive mode) Ask questions one at a time with the platform's blocking question tool (fall back to a question in chat when the tool is unavailable), prefer multiple choice, lead with a recommendation and one sentence of rationale, and never ask before you have evidence. The goal is a good maintenance decision with the least friction, not a checklist march. ## Refresh Order Learnings first, then the pattern docs that depend on them — learning docs are the primary evidence and stale learnings can make a pattern look more valid than it is. If the user names a pattern doc, start there to understand the concern, but inspect its supporting learnings before changing it. ## Maintenance Model Classify each candidate into one of five outcomes: | Outcome | Meaning | Default action | |---------|---------|----------------| | **Keep** | Still accurate and useful | No file edit; report it was reviewed and remains trustworthy | | **Update** | Core solution correct, references drifted | Apply evidence-backed in-place edits | | **Consolidate** | Docs overlap heavily, both correct | Merge unique content into the canonical doc, delete the subsumed doc | | **Replace** | Now misleading, better replacement known | Write a trustworthy successor, delete the old | | **Delete** | No longer useful, applicable, or distinct | Delete — git history is the archive | ## Core Rules 1. **Evidence informs judgment.** Signals are inputs, not a mechanical scorecard. 2. **Prefer no-write Keep** — no review breadcrumbs. 3. **Match docs to reality, not the reverse.** When code and doc disagree, update the doc. This skill does doc accuracy, not code review — never ask whether code changes were "intentional." 4. **Be decisive, minimize questions.** Clear evidence → act. Interactive: ask only on genuine ambiguity. Headless: stale-mark instead. 5. **Avoid low-value churn** — no typo-polish or cosmetic edits. 6. **Update only for meaningful, evidence-backed drift** — paths, module names, links, snippets, metadata, clearly stale wording. 7. **Replace only with a real replacement**: a verified fix in the current conversation, concrete user-supplied context, a codebase investigation that can document the current approach, or strong successor evidence in newer docs/PRs/issues. 8. **Delete when the code is gone — after the two Delete checks in Phase 2.** Don't default to Keep because the general advice is still "sound." 9. **Evaluate document-set design, not just accuracy.** Redundant docs drift silently — two docs saying the same thing will eventually say different things. 10. **Delete, don't archive.** No `_archived/` directory. Git history preserves every deleted file (`git log --diff-filter=D -- .ai/solutions/`). An archive directory accumulates, pollutes search, and nobody reads it. ## Scope Selection Discover `.md` files under `.ai/solutions/`, excluding `README.md` and anything under `_archived/` (if that legacy directory exists, flag it for cleanup in the report). If `$ARGUMENTS` provides a scope hint, narrow with the first strategy that produces results: directory name → frontmatter (`module`, `component`, `tags`) → filename (partial ok) → content keyword. No matches: ask the user to clarify (interactive) or report and exit (headless). If no candidate docs exist at all, report that and suggest running `ce-compound` after solving problems. ## Phase 0: Assess and Route Estimate scope and choose the lightest path by judgment: a named doc or two → investigate directly and present a recommendation; a batch of mostly independent docs → investigate first, present grouped recommendations; a broad or repo-wide sweep → triage before deep investigation: read candidate frontmatter, cluster by module/area, spot-check whether each cluster's primary referenced files still exist, and start with the highest-impact cluster (dense cluster + missing references = strongest signal). Interactive: confirm the starting area with one question. Headless: process clusters in impact order. Gather evidence before asking any action-selection question. ## Phase 1: Investigate Candidate Learnings For each learning in scope, read it, cross-reference its claims against the current codebase, and form a recommendation. Staleness hides in independent dimensions: - **References** — do mentioned paths, classes, modules still exist? - **Recommended solution** — does the fix still match how the code works today? A renamed file with a different implementation pattern is not a path update. - **Code examples** — do snippets reflect the current implementation? - **Related docs** — are cross-references still present and consistent? - **Auto memory** (Claude Code only) — do injected auto-memory entries in the same problem domain describe a different approach? Supplementary signal only. - **Overlap** — note when another in-scope doc covers the same problem, files, or solution; record the paths, overlapping dimensions, and which doc looks broader or more current (feeds Phase 1.75). - **Vocabulary** — note cited domain terms: present in `CONCEPTS.md`? Still accurate there? Collect centrally for Phase 4.5; don't edit during investigation. Match investigation depth to the learning's specificity — exact paths and snippets need more verification than a general principle. ### Drift Classification: Update vs Replace Cosmetic drift (references moved, solution unchanged) is **Update** — fix directly. Substantive drift (the solution itself changed, the architecture shifted, the pattern is no longer preferred) is **Replace** — a replacement subagent writes the successor in `ce-compound`'s document format from the evidence already gathered; the orchestrator never rewrites learnings inline. **The boundary:** if you find yourself rewriting the solution section or changing what the learning recommends, stop — that is Replace, not Update. Memory-sourced drift signals are supplementary: use them to corroborate codebase drift, prompt deeper investigation, or annotate evidence ("(auto memory [claude])") — never as the sole basis for Replace or Delete. ### Judgment Guidelines 1. **Contradiction = strong Replace signal.** Guidance that conflicts with current code is actively misleading, not minor drift. 2. **Age alone is not staleness.** Old-but-accurate is fine; age only prompts closer inspection. 3. **Check for successors before deleting.** If newer docs/PRs/issues cover the same space, prefer Replace so readers reach the newer guidance. ## Phase 1.5: Investigate Pattern Docs Patterns are high-leverage derived guidance — a stale pattern misleads more than a stale learning. Evaluate whether the generalized rule still holds given the refreshed learnings. A pattern with no clear supporting learnings is itself a stale signal. ## Phase 1.75: Document-Set Analysis Step back and evaluate the set — problems visible only when comparing docs to each other. - **Overlap:** for docs sharing a module/domain, compare problem statement, solution shape, referenced files, prevention rules, root cause. High overlap on 3+ dimensions is a strong Consolidate signal: would a future maintainer need both docs, or is one repeating the other? - **Supersession:** an older narrow precursor subsumed by a newer, broader, more current doc is a consolidation candidate — merge its unique content, delete it. - **Canonical doc per cluster:** identify the doc a maintainer should find first (usually newest, broadest, most accurate). Every other doc is **distinct** (independent retrieval value — keep), **subsumed** (consolidate), or **redundant** (delete). - **Retrieval-Value Test:** separate docs earn their keep only when they cover sub-problems someone would search for independently, target different audiences, or merging would harm navigation more than drift risk harms accuracy. Otherwise consolidate — drift-prone twins are worse than one longer doc. - **Conflicts:** outright contradictions between docs are more urgent than staleness — resolve immediately via Consolidate or targeted Update/Replace. ## Subagent Strategy Use subagents for context isolation when investigating multiple artifacts; run the main thread for small scopes. Two roles: 1. **Investigation subagents** — read-only; never edit, create, or delete. Each returns: path, evidence, recommended action, confidence, open questions. Parallelize freely across independent artifacts; investigate overlapping docs together. 2. **Replacement subagents** — each writes one successor learning (pass the `../ce-compound` contract-file pointers). Parallelize independent candidates. The orchestrator owns all deletions and metadata edits. When spawning, do not override the sub-agent's permission mode (the user's permission settings apply), tell subagents to use dedicated file tools rather than shell for file operations, and have them scan the auto-memory block (when present) for domain-relevant notes, reporting memory-sourced signals separately tagged "(auto memory [claude])". ## Phase 2: Classify the Right Maintenance Action Assign one recommended action per candidate. - **Keep** — accurate and useful; no edit. Add `last_refreshed` only if already making a meaningful update. - **Update** — apply the reference fixes directly. - **Consolidate** — Phase 1.75 found heavy overlap with both docs correct: merge unique content into the canonical doc, then delete the subsumed doc. Nothing unique → skip straight to Delete. - **Replace** — core guidance is misleading. Don't ask the user for context they won't have months later — investigate and synthesize. Sufficient evidence (you understand both the old recommendation and the current approach) → write the successor (Phase 4). Insufficient → mark stale with `stale_reason` and recommend `ce-compound` after the user's next encounter with that area. - **Delete** — code and problem domain are gone, or the doc is fully redundant with no successor evidence. Two checks first: - **Is the problem domain still active?** Missing files prove the *implementation* is gone, not the problem. Session tokens handled by a new module after `auth_token.rb` disappeared is Replace, not Delete; a fully removed feature is Delete. Don't search mechanically for old keywords — understand the concept and look for where the problem lives now. - **Inbound links.** Search the repo's markdown (not source code) for citations of the filename slug. **Decorative** (principle stated inline, "see also") → Delete is fine, clean citations in the same commit; **substantive** (citing doc relies on it for content not stated inline) → Replace at the same path, or Keep with narrowed scope; **mixed/unclear** → stale-mark. Citations inform classification, not cleanup — cleanup is always mechanical. **Auto-delete only when all three hold:** implementation gone (or clearly superseded / plainly redundant), problem domain gone, and inbound links absent or unambiguously decorative. ## Pattern Guidance Apply the same five outcomes to pattern docs as derived guidance: Keep when the underlying learnings still support the rule; Update when examples or references drifted; Consolidate when two patterns generalize the same learnings; Replace when the refreshed learning set supports a different synthesis (never invent rules from guesswork); Delete when no longer valid, recurring, or distinct. ## Phase 3: Ask for Decisions (interactive only) Apply most Updates and Consolidations directly. Ask only when: - the right action is genuinely ambiguous (Update vs Replace vs Consolidate vs Delete) - a Delete does not meet the auto-delete criteria - the canonical doc for a Consolidate is not clear-cut - a Replace successor is about to be created Present the evidence (path, 2–4 bullets, recommended action + rationale) and ask one question at a time, recommendation first, offering only the plausible actions plus "skip for now". For batches, group the obvious Keeps and Updates and handle Replace/Delete individually. Never ask about code intent — stay in the doc-accuracy lane. Headless: skip this phase entirely; execute classifications directly, stale-marking the ambiguous. ## Phase 4: Execute the Chosen Action For each candidate, read `references/per-action-flows.md` and follow the matching section — it holds the per-action criteria, examples, and steps: - **Keep** — no edit; summarize why it remains trustworthy. - **Update** — in-place edits. - **Consolidate** — merge into canonical, delete subsumed, update cross-references (orchestrator-owned). - **Replace** — successor via subagent, validate frontmatter, delete the old; stale-mark when evidence is insufficient. - **Delete** — final inbound-link check, then remove; reclassify on late-discovered substantive citations. ## Phase 4.5: Vocabulary Capture Read `../ce-compound/references/concepts-vocabulary.md`, then reconcile the domain terms flagged in Phase 1 with `CONCEPTS.md`, applying the reference's criteria and organization rules: - **Aggregate** qualifying terms across the scope; union shades of the same term into one entry. - **Existing file:** add missing terms, refine entries where new precision surfaced, then backfill any central-but-missing core nouns of the area in scope (re-derived per the Seed goal) — bounded to the scope, never a repo-wide sweep. Scrub entries violating the reference's criteria (implementation specifics, config values that drift, metadata, duplicates, undefined siblings) — the full-file scrub is appropriate here because refresh is an audit. - **No file and a qualifying term surfaced:** bootstrap — seed the area's core nouns alongside it (conservative bar for borderline terms), start with the standard preamble under `# Concepts` (see the reference and ce-compound Phase 2.4), and let term count drive shape. - Apply edits silently in every mode; record the outcome in the report's `CONCEPTS.md` line (including "scanned, no qualifying terms"). ## Output Format Print the full report as markdown — it is the deliverable, never a one-line summary: ```text Compound Refresh Summary ======================== Scanned: N learnings Kept: X Updated: Y Consolidated: C Replaced: Z Deleted: W Skipped: V Marked stale: S CONCEPTS.md: ``` Then for every file processed: path, classification, evidence found (tag memory-sourced findings "(auto memory [claude])"), and the action taken or recommended. For Consolidate: the canonical doc, what was merged, what was deleted. List Keeps under a reviewed-without-edits section. **Headless report:** split actions into **Applied** (writes that succeeded) and **Recommended** (writes that failed — same detail, framed so a human can apply them or re-run interactively). All writes failing turns the report into a maintenance plan. If `.ai/solutions/_archived/` exists, list its files and recommend disposition (restore, delete, or consolidate). ## Phase 5: Commit Changes Skip if no files were modified. Check the current branch, other uncommitted changes, and recent commit style first. Stage only the files this refresh modified. **Headless defaults:** on main/master — create a branch named for what was refreshed (e.g., `.ai/refresh-auth-learnings`), commit, attempt a PR (report the branch if PR creation fails); on a feature branch — separate commit on the current branch; git failures — include the recommended commands in the report and continue. **Interactive:** offer the options that fit the detected state — on main/master: branch + commit + PR (recommended), commit here, or don't commit; on a clean feature branch: separate commit here (recommended), new branch, or don't commit; on a dirty feature branch: selective-stage commit here, or don't commit. Commit message: summarize what was refreshed (e.g., "update 3 stale learnings, consolidate 2 overlapping docs"), matching the repo's conventions. ## Relationship to ce-compound `ce-compound` captures a newly solved, verified problem; this skill maintains older learnings — individual accuracy and collective document-set design. Replace only with real evidence; otherwise stale-mark and recommend `ce-compound` for the next encounter. Consolidate proactively — every capture adds a doc, and periodic consolidation keeps the set lean. ## Discoverability Check After the refresh report is generated, run the shared check in `../ce-compound/references/discoverability-check.md`. Mode-specific interaction for this skill: **interactive** — show the proposed change and get consent via the blocking question tool before editing; **headless** — do not edit instruction files (headless scope is doc maintenance, not project config); include a "Discoverability recommendation" line in the report instead. **Commit handling when the check produces edits:** if Phase 5 already committed the refresh changes, stage the edited instruction file and amend (same branch, not pushed) or create a small follow-up commit (e.g., `docs: add .ai/solutions/ discoverability to AGENTS.md`); if Phase 5 pushed, push the follow-up too so the open PR includes it. If the user chose "Don't commit" in Phase 5, leave the edits unstaged alongside the other uncommitted changes.