Context Degradation
Warning signs
- repeated questions or redoing completed work;
- path/tool/model names that do not exist in the active host;
- contradictions with user corrections or current files;
- unverified claims inherited from summaries;
- broad reads and irrelevant tools crowding out task evidence;
- skipped validation, vague next steps, or lost rollback information;
- mutable external/file state assumed unchanged after a long delay.
Recovery
- Stop mutations when authority, target, or current state is uncertain.
- Re-read the latest user request, project instructions, task ledger, plan, and current working tree.
- Verify critical facts from source: paths, configs, versions, running processes, tests, and external status.
- Mark stale assumptions and contradictions explicitly; discard unsupported narrative.
- Reduce active tools/references to the current step and move large evidence to artifacts with pointers.
- Produce a fresh compressed handoff containing constraints, decisions, failures, artifacts, validation, and next action.
- Resume with one small verifiable step, then reassess.
Use subagents for bounded independent investigation, not as a way to replicate degraded context. A fresh reviewer should receive source artifacts and acceptance criteria, not the desired conclusion.
Prevention
Keep a decision/evidence ledger, validate after risky steps, report exact paths and commands, update summaries when facts change, and avoid loading many overlapping skills. Never wait for a fabricated percentage threshold; recover when observed behavior or evidence shows degradation.
1---2name: context-degradation3description: Detect and recover from declining accuracy in long tasks caused by stale assumptions, contradictory summaries, excessive tool metadata, duplicated.4license: MIT5---67# Context Degradation89## Warning signs1011- repeated questions or redoing completed work;12- path/tool/model names that do not exist in the active host;13- contradictions with user corrections or current files;14- unverified claims inherited from summaries;15- broad reads and irrelevant tools crowding out task evidence;16- skipped validation, vague next steps, or lost rollback information;17- mutable external/file state assumed unchanged after a long delay.1819## Recovery20211. Stop mutations when authority, target, or current state is uncertain.222. Re-read the latest user request, project instructions, task ledger, plan, and current working tree.233. Verify critical facts from source: paths, configs, versions, running processes, tests, and external status.244. Mark stale assumptions and contradictions explicitly; discard unsupported narrative.255. Reduce active tools/references to the current step and move large evidence to artifacts with pointers.266. Produce a fresh compressed handoff containing constraints, decisions, failures, artifacts, validation, and next action.277. Resume with one small verifiable step, then reassess.2829Use subagents for bounded independent investigation, not as a way to replicate degraded context. A fresh reviewer should receive source artifacts and acceptance criteria, not the desired conclusion.3031## Prevention3233Keep a decision/evidence ledger, validate after risky steps, report exact paths and commands, update summaries when facts change, and avoid loading many overlapping skills. Never wait for a fabricated percentage threshold; recover when observed behavior or evidence shows degradation.
yigityildiz0