obsidian-notes-karpathy（Obsidian notes karpathy 搜索）

Obsidian Notes Karpathy

Package-level entry point for the review-gated knowledge workflow.

Use this skill when the user talks about the workflow as a whole, not just one operation. Diagnose the lifecycle stage first, then route to the correct operational skill. If the operation is already obvious, skip the router and go straight to the matching kb-* skill.

Archive semantics are split deliberately:

• raw retention archive: raw/** plus raw/_manifest.yaml
• artifact archive: durable outputs under outputs/**

Neither archive surface bypasses the draft -> review -> live truth boundary.

Minimal loop

• kb-ingest registers raw sources into raw/_manifest.yaml
• kb-compile builds reviewable candidates from immutable captures
• kb-review decides what deserves durable truth
• kb-query reuses approved knowledge for search, grounded answers, creator-facing publish artifacts, archived Q&A reuse, and static web export
• kb-render turns approved knowledge into deterministic derivative artifacts
• kb-review also owns the maintenance lane when approved knowledge drifts or backlog accumulates

Karpathy alignment

This package implements the LLM Wiki pattern: "Obsidian is the IDE; the LLM is the programmer; the wiki is the codebase." The user curates sources, asks questions, and thinks about meaning. The LLM handles summarizing, cross-referencing, filing, and bookkeeping that makes knowledge compound over time.

The key extension beyond Karpathy's original idea is an explicit review gate: unreviewed drafts never silently harden into long-term truth. This adds a draft → review → live promotion step that Karpathy's pattern leaves implicit.

The creator-ready extension is that compile should behave like a knowledge compiler, not just a summarizer: collect -> ingest -> compile (浓缩 -> 质疑 -> 对标) -> review -> query/publish -> maintenance.

When this compounds the wiki

The package should behave like a persistent markdown wiki operator, not just a staged pipeline. Each step should either improve approved knowledge directly through the gate or leave behind clearer navigation, better reuse surfaces, and explicit next actions.

Read before routing

Read these shared references first:

• ./scripts/skill-contract-registry.json
• ./references/archive-model.md
• ./references/file-model.md
• ./references/lifecycle-matrix.md
• ./references/search-upgrades.md
• ./references/activity-log-template.md
• ./references/provenance-and-alias-policy.md
• ./references/questions-and-reflection-policy.md
• ./references/memory-lifecycle.md
• ./references/graph-contract.md
• ./references/source-manifest-contract.md
• ./references/profile-contract.md
• ./references/automation-hooks.md

Treat skill-contract-registry.json as the canonical list of package roles, required shared references, baseline scripts, and output surfaces.

If the target vault already exists, inspect:

• local AGENTS.md
• local CLAUDE.md if present
• the top of wiki/index.md
• the most recent entries in wiki/log.md when available

If ./scripts/detect_lifecycle.py exists, run it first and treat its JSON output as the deterministic baseline.

If ./scripts/vault_status.py exists, use it as the user-facing status wrapper after lifecycle detection when the user mainly wants a concise "where am I and what next?" summary.

Lifecycle signals

Init signals

Route to kb-init when:

• the support layer does not exist yet
• AGENTS.md is missing
• wiki/index.md or wiki/log.md is missing
• wiki/drafts/, wiki/live/, wiki/briefings/, or outputs/reviews/ is missing
• the vault is a needs-migration / legacy-layout case that must be migrated first
• optional governance scaffolding such as QUESTIONS.md or ALIASES.md is explicitly requested

Compile signals

Route to kb-compile when:

• new or changed raw captures exist under raw/human/**, raw/agents/{role}/**, or directly under raw/ in a bootstrap vault
• the draft summary matching a raw capture is missing or outdated
• alias candidates, duplicate candidates, or source-integrity drift need to be surfaced before review
• a legacy-layout raw source still needs to be converted into the draft layer during migration

Ingest signals

Route to kb-ingest when:

• raw/_manifest.yaml exists but is stale relative to raw/**
• the user explicitly wants to refresh the source registry or inspect deferred raw sources
• a paper PDF, image asset, or data asset should be registered before compile runs
• a manifest drift signal appears before draft compilation work starts

Review signals

Route to kb-review when:

• draft knowledge exists under wiki/drafts/** and still has review_state: pending
• the user explicitly asks to run the quality gate, approve drafts, reject drafts, or rebuild briefings
• briefings are stale relative to the live layer and the next immediate step is to rebuild them through the gate
• a draft has unresolved contradiction, alias-alignment, or duplication-risk questions that require approval judgment

kb-review owns the immediate gate: pending draft decisions, promotion into wiki/live/, and briefing rebuilds that should happen as part of the current review pass.

Query signals

Route to kb-query when:

• wiki/live/** is trustworthy and current
• the user wants an answer, report, thread, slides, or other artifact grounded in the approved brain
• the user wants to reuse prior approved coverage or archived outputs before drafting a new outward-facing artifact
• the user wants to archive a substantive answer or reuse a prior archived answer/content artifact
• the user wants question-resolution candidates or reflection outputs that should stay outside live until re-reviewed
• the user explicitly uses older kb-search wording for local-first retrieval or candidate ranking

Render signals

Route to kb-render when:

• the user explicitly wants slides, a report, chart brief, or canvas output
• the task is deterministic format generation from approved knowledge rather than a normal grounded answer
• the user already has the source pages or archived answer and now wants a derivative artifact

Health signals

Route to kb-review in maintenance mode when:

• the live layer feels contradictory, weakly linked, or poorly provenanced
• approved pages appear to have bypassed review
• review backlog, stale briefings, or writeback pressure have become longer-horizon maintenance issues rather than the next immediate gate
• archived answers have pending writeback work
• archived outputs need hygiene work such as stale reuse, archive backlog cleanup, or private/shared scope leakage
• collaboration memory and approved knowledge appear to be mixing
• the user wants a maintenance baseline, drift audit, duplicate pass, alias audit, coverage-gap review, or report-first cleanup pass across approved surfaces
• the user wants planning surfaces such as curated hubs or editorial-gap views refreshed without widening the truth boundary
• the user wants to know which repeated outputs, question clusters, or weakly connected topics should become syntheses or hubs next

kb-review owns both the immediate gate and the longer-horizon maintenance lane: approved-layer drift, backlog pressure, archived-output hygiene, source-integrity drift, alias splits, graph weakness, hub backlog, and safe mechanical fixes after the immediate review gate has passed.

Contract rules

• Treat raw/ as immutable evidence intake.
• Treat raw/_manifest.yaml as the canonical source registry.
• Treat wiki/drafts/ as reviewable knowledge, not query truth.
• Treat wiki/live/ as the only approved long-term brain.
• Treat wiki/live/topics/ as the default browse layer over approved knowledge.
• Treat wiki/live/procedures/ as approved procedural memory, not just another concept bucket.
• Treat wiki/briefings/ as per-role context generated from live only.
• Treat outputs/episodes/ as episodic memory and outputs/audit/operations.jsonl as the machine-readable audit trail.
• Treat archived outputs/qa/** and outputs/content/** as reusable artifact archive, not as approved truth.
• Treat outputs/reviews/ as the durable decision ledger.
• Keep wiki/index.md and wiki/log.md as complementary navigation surfaces.
• Absorb stronger governance signals such as source integrity, alias alignment, stale-page checks, and question tracking without collapsing the review gate.

Output requirements

When the user asks what to do next, answer with:

1. the lifecycle stage you detected
2. the concrete signals that led you there
3. the operational skill you are routing to
4. the next concrete action in the vault
5. any assumption you had to make
6. any repair target, migration warning, or missing companion guidance