mirror of
https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git
synced 2026-10-07 02:58:13 +00:00
abd9c9d8de
generate-docs.py learns the agent-launcher domain (5 hardcoded maps extended); regenerated docs tree: 343 skill pages / 96 agent pages / 122 command pages (561 total). mkdocs.yml nav gains the Agent Launcher skill section (7 pages), 4 cs-agent-* agent entries, and 8 /cs:* command entries; all nav targets verified to exist. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_012FwXG6TqCXKZQvF4iD69cv
66 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
66 lines
2.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: "/cs-forgetting-audit — Slash Command for AI Coding Agents"
|
|
description: "Run only the blocking forgetting gate on a memory design or store — what leaves, and on what rule.. Slash command for Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI."
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# /cs-forgetting-audit
|
|
|
|
<div class="page-meta" markdown>
|
|
<span class="meta-badge">:material-console: Slash Command</span>
|
|
<span class="meta-badge">:material-github: <a href="https://github.com/alirezarezvani/2-claude-skills/tree/main/engineering/memory-engineering/commands/cs-forgetting-audit.md">Source</a></span>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
The short pass. Skip the cost and architecture work; answer one question about
|
|
`$ARGUMENTS`:
|
|
|
|
> **What leaves this store, and on what rule?**
|
|
|
|
## Run
|
|
|
|
If given a policy JSON:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
python skills/memory-engineering/scripts/forgetting_policy_linter.py --policy <policy.json>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If given a directory, first show what is actually accumulating, then gate:
|
|
|
|
```bash
|
|
python skills/memory-engineering/scripts/memory_density_auditor.py --dir <path>
|
|
python skills/memory-engineering/scripts/forgetting_policy_linter.py --policy <policy.json>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If no policy file exists, that is the answer — nothing leaves the store. Show
|
|
what `--sample-failing` blocks, then help write one from
|
|
`skills/memory-engineering/assets/forgetting_policy_template.md`.
|
|
|
|
## The two blocking checks
|
|
|
|
- **F1 — an explicit forgetting rule** (TTL, capacity bound with a stated
|
|
eviction order, or relevance decay). None of the memory systems in the
|
|
Stanford evaluation prunes or forgets by default: if it was not built, it does
|
|
not exist.
|
|
- **F4 — contradictions surfaced, never auto-merged.** `newest_wins`,
|
|
`auto_merge`, `overwrite` and `last_write_wins` all fail. Two memories that
|
|
disagree may both have been true in different contexts, and silently resolving
|
|
them destroys the only evidence the conflict existed.
|
|
|
|
The other six checks (dedup, consolidation, scope, audit trail, rollback,
|
|
growth-slope monitoring) degrade the verdict to CONDITIONAL rather than failing
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
## Report
|
|
|
|
1. **Verdict** — PASS (0) / CONDITIONAL (2) / **FAIL (4)**
|
|
2. **Every failing check** with its ID, why it matters, and its fix
|
|
3. **The one thing to fix first** — F1 or F4 if either failed; otherwise the
|
|
highest-leverage warning
|
|
|
|
## Do not
|
|
|
|
- Do not soften a FAIL into a suggestion. Retrofitting forgetting onto a full
|
|
store is a data migration with a judgment call attached to every record —
|
|
which is exactly why it never happens.
|
|
- Do not accept "we will add pruning later." Later is the failure mode.
|
|
- Do not propose auto-resolution for contradictions, in any form.
|