Now I have everything I need. Let me write:
1. A source page: `/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/sources/Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable Finding Your Unknowns.md`
2. A concept page: `/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/concepts/Finding Your Unknowns Framework.md`
3. Update Home.md - add to Sources and Concepts sections
4. Update Wiki Ingest Log.md - add a 2026-07-06 entry

The source page file name should follow the pattern "Claude Blog - [Short Title].md".

I'll use "Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable.md" for the source. The concept page will focus on this framework for improving agentic coding with Claude Fable—organizing unknowns into four categories: Known Knowns (explicit instructions), Known Unknowns (acknowledged gaps), Unknown Knowns (obvious info not explicitly stated), and Unknown Unknowns (unconsidered possibilities).

This is the first practical "how to use Claude Fable" write-up from the blog with specific techniques. I should check if there's an existing Claude Fable page to update—I see there's already a Claude Fable 5 entry in the Home.md that mentions it's GA with always-on adaptive thinking and a new tokenizer. I'll need to review that page and link it to this blog post for practical guidance.


Let me quickly check the existing Claude Fable page before writing.


No files found


Bash

find /workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki -name "*Fable*" -o -name "*fable*" 2>/dev/null


/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/tools/Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5.md
/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/sources/X - EXM7777 - Do This On Your Last Day With Fable.md


Read

/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/tools/Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5.md


1	# Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5
2
3	**Type:** Frontier Claude models
4	**By:** Anthropic
5	**Status:** Fable 5 (GA), Mythos 5 (Preview)
6	**Source:** `anthropics/skills` — claude-api skill commit #1294 (June 9, 2026)
7
8	## What they are
9
10	**Claude Mythos 5** — The underlying frontier model. Preview availability.
11
12	**Claude Fable 5** — Same model as Mythos with Anthropic's additional safety/alignment layer applied. The production-ready version. Launch benchmark: state-of-the-art across most tested benchmarks; lead grows as tasks get longer and more complex (reported by practitioners — see [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]]).
13
14	## Key API differences from prior Claude models
15
16	### Always-on adaptive thinking
17	- Adaptive thinking is always on for Fable 5 — cannot be disabled.
18	- Sending `extended_thinking: { enabled: false }` returns HTTP 400.
19	- Plan for thinking token overhead in context budgets.
20
21	### New tokenizer
22	- Approximately **30% more tokens** per equivalent input compared to prior Claude models.
23	- Cost accounting must be recalibrated — don't assume prior per-task estimates carry over.
24	- Use [[AgentsView]] or independent accounting to track actual spend at launch (pricing databases may lag).
25
26	### Protected-thinking display and replay rules
27	- Extended thinking blocks have display/replay restrictions.
28	- Review Anthropic's current docs for exact rules before surfacing thinking content in products.
29
30	### Refusal stop reason + classifier fallback
31
32	Fable 5 has conservative classifiers that block requests in three specific areas:
33
34	| `stop_details.category` | Fires on |
35	|---|---|
36	| `"cyber"` | Offensive cybersecurity content — exploits, malware, attack tooling |
37	| `"bio"` | Biology / life-sciences — lab methods, molecular mechanisms |
38	| `"reasoning_extraction"` | Requests attempting to extract the model's summarized thinking |
39
40	Response shape on a block:
41	```json
42	{
43	  "stop_reason": "refusal",
44	  "stop_details": {
45	    "type": "refusal",
46	    "category": "cyber",
47	    "explanation": "..."
48	  }
49	}
50	```
51
52	Branch on **`stop_reason`**, not `content` or `stop_details`. `stop_details` can be `null` — treat that as a generic refusal.
53
54	**Server-side fallback (recommended):** Pass `fallbacks: [{"model": "claude-opus-4-8"}]` + beta header. On a classifier block, the API automatically retries with Opus 4.8. Currently supported on Claude API and Claude Platform on AWS.
55
56	```bash
57	-H "anthropic-beta: server-side-fallback-2026-06-01"
58	"fallbacks": [{ "model": "claude-opus-4-8" }]
59	```
60
61	**`stop_details.recommended_model`** — populated only when fallbacks are configured but the fallback model couldn't execute (rate-limited/overloaded). Names the model to retry directly.
62
63	**Billing change (when NOT using server-side fallback):** `stop_details.fallback_credit_token` lets you bill the fallback request as a cache read (cheaper). Requires action if you handle fallback client-side.
64
65	Source: `claude-cookbooks/fable_5_fallback_billing/guide.ipynb` (June 2026)
66
67	The skills repo also ships **SDK fallback middleware** for handling `"refusal"` stop_reason in production SDK flows.
68
69	### Data retention
70	- 30-day data-retention requirement (stricter than prior models in some configurations).
71	- Relevant for regulated use cases (HIPAA, etc.).
72
73	## Migration
74
75	Anthropic added a full "Migrating to Claude Fable 5" guide + checklist to the claude-api skill:
76
77	1. **Tokenizer recalibration** — update cost estimates, re-validate context-window budgets.
78	2. **Thinking opt-out removal** — remove any `extended_thinking: false` from request payloads.
79	3. **Refusal stop reason** — add `"refusal"` to stop_reason handlers and wire in SDK fallback middleware.
80	4. **Data retention review** — check compliance posture against the 30-day window.
81	5. **Prompt re-tuning** — Fable/Mythos has behavioral changes vs 4.x models; prompts that were tuned for 4.7 or Opus 4.8 may need adjustments (not API breaking changes, behavioral shifts).
82
83	**Mythos Preview path:** Separate migration checklist in the skill for moving from Mythos Preview → GA or Fable 5.
84
85	## Practical notes for James's stack
86
87	- **congressional-trading** — Recalibrate token budgets for any Fable 5 runs; the 30% tokenizer difference directly affects context window planning.
88	- **qip-qien** — Fable 5's strong performance on long, complex knowledge-work tasks (9+ hour autonomous sessions reported by Ethan Mollick) makes it the right model for the expert-draft pipeline when conviction threshold is high.
89	- **Pool Monitor / Arduino** — No impact; those are Python scripts with no Claude API calls.
90
91	## Related
92
93	- [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]] — Practitioner capability reports (Karpathy, Mollick, Shipper, Willison)
94	- [[Frontier Model Qualitative Step Change]] — Pattern for evaluating major model jumps
95	- [[AgentsView]] — Cost accounting when pricing databases lag launch
96	- [[Managed Agents]] — Opus 4.8 tool-description guidance (applicable to Fable 5 behavioral profile)
97	- [[Anthropic Skills Repo]] — Source of the migration guide and API reference
98

/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/tools/Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5.md

# Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

**Type:** Frontier Claude models
**By:** Anthropic
**Status:** Fable 5 (GA), Mythos 5 (Preview)
**Source:** `anthropics/skills` — claude-api skill commit #1294 (June 9, 2026)

## What they are

**Claude Mythos 5** — The underlying frontier model. Preview availability.

**Claude Fable 5** — Same model as Mythos with Anthropic's additional safety/alignment layer applied. The production-ready version. Launch benchmark: state-of-the-art across most tested benchmarks; lead grows as tasks get longer and more complex (reported by practitioners — see [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]]).

## Key API differences from prior Claude models

### Always-on adaptive thinking
- Adaptive thinking is always on for Fable 5 — cannot be disabled.
- Sending `extended_thinking: { enabled: false }` returns HTTP 400.
- Plan for thinking token overhead in context budgets.

### New tokenizer
- Approximately **30% more tokens** per equivalent input compared to prior Claude models.
- Cost accounting must be recalibrated — don't assume prior per-task estimates carry over.
- Use [[AgentsView]] or independent accounting to track actual spend at launch (pricing databases may lag).

### Protected-thinking display and replay rules
- Extended thinking blocks have display/replay restrictions.
- Review Anthropic's current docs for exact rules before surfacing thinking content in products.

### Refusal stop reason + classifier fallback

Fable 5 has conservative classifiers that block requests in three specific areas:

| `stop_details.category` | Fires on |
|---|---|
| `"cyber"` | Offensive cybersecurity content — exploits, malware, attack tooling |
| `"bio"` | Biology / life-sciences — lab methods, molecular mechanisms |
| `"reasoning_extraction"` | Requests attempting to extract the model's summarized thinking |

Response shape on a block:
```json
{
  "stop_reason": "refusal",
  "stop_details": {
    "type": "refusal",
    "category": "cyber",
    "explanation": "..."
  }
}
```

Branch on **`stop_reason`**, not `content` or `stop_details`. `stop_details` can be `null` — treat that as a generic refusal.

**Server-side fallback (recommended):** Pass `fallbacks: [{"model": "claude-opus-4-8"}]` + beta header. On a classifier block, the API automatically retries with Opus 4.8. Currently supported on Claude API and Claude Platform on AWS.

```bash
-H "anthropic-beta: server-side-fallback-2026-06-01"
"fallbacks": [{ "model": "claude-opus-4-8" }]
```

**`stop_details.recommended_model`** — populated only when fallbacks are configured but the fallback model couldn't execute (rate-limited/overloaded). Names the model to retry directly.

**Billing change (when NOT using server-side fallback):** `stop_details.fallback_credit_token` lets you bill the fallback request as a cache read (cheaper). Requires action if you handle fallback client-side.

Source: `claude-cookbooks/fable_5_fallback_billing/guide.ipynb` (June 2026)

The skills repo also ships **SDK fallback middleware** for handling `"refusal"` stop_reason in production SDK flows.

### Data retention
- 30-day data-retention requirement (stricter than prior models in some configurations).
- Relevant for regulated use cases (HIPAA, etc.).

## Migration

Anthropic added a full "Migrating to Claude Fable 5" guide + checklist to the claude-api skill:

1. **Tokenizer recalibration** — update cost estimates, re-validate context-window budgets.
2. **Thinking opt-out removal** — remove any `extended_thinking: false` from request payloads.
3. **Refusal stop reason** — add `"refusal"` to stop_reason handlers and wire in SDK fallback middleware.
4. **Data retention review** — check compliance posture against the 30-day window.
5. **Prompt re-tuning** — Fable/Mythos has behavioral changes vs 4.x models; prompts that were tuned for 4.7 or Opus 4.8 may need adjustments (not API breaking changes, behavioral shifts).

**Mythos Preview path:** Separate migration checklist in the skill for moving from Mythos Preview → GA or Fable 5.

## Practical notes for James's stack

- **congressional-trading** — Recalibrate token budgets for any Fable 5 runs; the 30% tokenizer difference directly affects context window planning.
- **qip-qien** — Fable 5's strong performance on long, complex knowledge-work tasks (9+ hour autonomous sessions reported by Ethan Mollick) makes it the right model for the expert-draft pipeline when conviction threshold is high.
- **Pool Monitor / Arduino** — No impact; those are Python scripts with no Claude API calls.

## Related

- [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]] — Practitioner capability reports (Karpathy, Mollick, Shipper, Willison)
- [[Frontier Model Qualitative Step Change]] — Pattern for evaluating major model jumps
- [[AgentsView]] — Cost accounting when pricing databases lag launch
- [[Managed Agents]] — Opus 4.8 tool-description guidance (applicable to Fable 5 behavioral profile)
- [[Anthropic Skills Repo]] — Source of the migration guide and API reference


Now I have everything I need. Let me write the three files:

1. Source page: `Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable.md`
2. Concept page: `Finding Unknowns Agentic Prompting.md` (for the 4-quadrant unknowns framework)
3. Update Home.md (add to Sources and Concepts sections)
4. Update Wiki Ingest Log.md (new entry for 2026-07-06)
5. Update the Claude Fable 5 tool page to reference this post as practical usage guidance

The concept page is about a framework for thinking about what information Claude doesn't have when working on agentic tasks.

I'll name it "Finding Your Unknowns Framework.md" — it's a practical prompting methodology for Claude Fable specifically. I should also update the existing Claude Fable 5 page to add a "Practical usage" section referencing this post. The framework breaks down into four categories: Known Knowns for explicit instructions, Known Unknowns for acknowledged gaps, Unknown Knowns for implicit context, and Unknown Unknowns for the truly unexpected.

I'm structuring this around a pre/during/post implementation approach — starting with blind spot passes and brainstorming sessions, moving through implementation documentation, and finishing with explainer artifacts and verification quizzes. This connects directly to context engineering as a more rigorous way to identify and fill in gaps before and during a task. There's also an important insight here about Claude Fable being a "bottleneck is the user" model — the work quality now depends on how well the user can clarify unknowns rather than on model capability itself.

Looking at how this applies to James's repos, I can see concrete opportunities: the expert persona in qip-qien is essentially doing blind spot pass work for the AI, the strategy-writing loop in TradingBot25 could benefit from a blind spot pass before handing off to Claude Code, and congressional-trading's scoring system could use reference-based prompting with example trades. I need to update Home.md to add this new concept and its source page, refresh the ingest log, and add a practical usage guide to the Claude Fable 5 tool page.

I'll start by creating the source page, then the concept page, then updating the three existing files.


Now I have all the context. Writing all files now.


Write

/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/sources/Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable.md

# Claude Blog — A Field Guide to Claude Fable: Finding Your Unknowns

**Source:** https://claude.com/blog/a-field-guide-to-claude-fable-finding-your-unknowns
**Author:** Thariq Shihipar (Member of Technical Staff, Anthropic — same author as the Dynamic Workflows post)
**Date:** July 6, 2026
**Category:** Claude Code

## Core thesis

> "Claude Fable is the first model where the quality of the work is bottlenecked by your ability to clarify its unknowns."

Fable is capable enough that the constraint has shifted from model capability to user clarity. The post is a practical guide to finding and resolving unknowns before and during agentic tasks.

## The unknowns framework

| Category | What it is | Example |
|---|---|---|
| **Known Knowns** | Explicit instructions you've provided | "Use TypeScript, write tests" |
| **Known Unknowns** | Gaps you're aware of but haven't filled | "I haven't told it the color scheme" |
| **Unknown Knowns** | Obvious context you haven't stated | "Of course the font should match the site" |
| **Unknown Unknowns** | Things you haven't thought of at all | Edge case in video color grading |

The hard ones are Unknown Knowns and Unknown Unknowns — things you don't know to say.

## Techniques by phase

### Pre-implementation
- **Blind spot pass** — Ask Claude to identify what it doesn't know before starting
- **Brainstorms and prototypes** — Generate options to surface hidden assumptions
- **Interviews with Claude** — Let Claude ask you questions; its questions reveal its unknowns
- **Reference-based prompting** — Provide concrete examples rather than describing abstractly
- **Implementation plans** — Claude writes the plan first; you review for gaps

### During implementation
- **Implementation notes** — Document decisions and unknowns as they arise mid-task

### Post-implementation
- **Pitch and explainer artifacts** — Have Claude explain what it did; gaps reveal misunderstandings
- **Quiz-based verification** — Claude quizzes you on the result; tests mutual understanding

## Worked example: video editing
Thariq edited a Fable launch video end-to-end. Key unknowns discovered:
- Transcription accuracy requirements (tolerate minor errors vs. exact)
- Video timing subtleties (when does a cut "feel right")
- Color grading standards (match existing Anthropic video style vs. artistic license)

Each was a Unknown Known — obvious in retrospect, never stated in the prompt. The blind spot pass technique surfaced them before they became problems.

## Why this is Fable-specific
Prior models compensated for vague prompts by guessing conservatively. Fable follows instructions more literally and more completely — so gaps in your specification produce bigger gaps in the output. The upside is when you do specify well, the output quality jump is significant.

## Related
- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — concept page distilling the 4-category framework and techniques
- [[Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5]] — model API reference
- [[3-Layer Context Engineering System]] — complementary framework for providing rich context
- [[Claude Code Dynamic Workflows]] — the orchestration layer these prompting techniques apply within
- [[Claude Code Skills Best Practices]] — Thariq's earlier post on skill structure


File created successfully at: /workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/sources/Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable.md (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)

# Claude Blog — A Field Guide to Claude Fable: Finding Your Unknowns

**Source:** https://claude.com/blog/a-field-guide-to-claude-fable-finding-your-unknowns
**Author:** Thariq Shihipar (Member of Technical Staff, Anthropic — same author as the Dynamic Workflows post)
**Date:** July 6, 2026
**Category:** Claude Code

## Core thesis

> "Claude Fable is the first model where the quality of the work is bottlenecked by your ability to clarify its unknowns."

Fable is capable enough that the constraint has shifted from model capability to user clarity. The post is a practical guide to finding and resolving unknowns before and during agentic tasks.

## The unknowns framework

| Category | What it is | Example |
|---|---|---|
| **Known Knowns** | Explicit instructions you've provided | "Use TypeScript, write tests" |
| **Known Unknowns** | Gaps you're aware of but haven't filled | "I haven't told it the color scheme" |
| **Unknown Knowns** | Obvious context you haven't stated | "Of course the font should match the site" |
| **Unknown Unknowns** | Things you haven't thought of at all | Edge case in video color grading |

The hard ones are Unknown Knowns and Unknown Unknowns — things you don't know to say.

## Techniques by phase

### Pre-implementation
- **Blind spot pass** — Ask Claude to identify what it doesn't know before starting
- **Brainstorms and prototypes** — Generate options to surface hidden assumptions
- **Interviews with Claude** — Let Claude ask you questions; its questions reveal its unknowns
- **Reference-based prompting** — Provide concrete examples rather than describing abstractly
- **Implementation plans** — Claude writes the plan first; you review for gaps

### During implementation
- **Implementation notes** — Document decisions and unknowns as they arise mid-task

### Post-implementation
- **Pitch and explainer artifacts** — Have Claude explain what it did; gaps reveal misunderstandings
- **Quiz-based verification** — Claude quizzes you on the result; tests mutual understanding

## Worked example: video editing
Thariq edited a Fable launch video end-to-end. Key unknowns discovered:
- Transcription accuracy requirements (tolerate minor errors vs. exact)
- Video timing subtleties (when does a cut "feel right")
- Color grading standards (match existing Anthropic video style vs. artistic license)

Each was a Unknown Known — obvious in retrospect, never stated in the prompt. The blind spot pass technique surfaced them before they became problems.

## Why this is Fable-specific
Prior models compensated for vague prompts by guessing conservatively. Fable follows instructions more literally and more completely — so gaps in your specification produce bigger gaps in the output. The upside is when you do specify well, the output quality jump is significant.

## Related
- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — concept page distilling the 4-category framework and techniques
- [[Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5]] — model API reference
- [[3-Layer Context Engineering System]] — complementary framework for providing rich context
- [[Claude Code Dynamic Workflows]] — the orchestration layer these prompting techniques apply within
- [[Claude Code Skills Best Practices]] — Thariq's earlier post on skill structure


/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/concepts/Finding Your Unknowns Framework.md

# Finding Your Unknowns Framework

**Origin:** Thariq Shihipar (Anthropic), July 6, 2026
**Source:** [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]]
**Applies to:** Claude Fable and any capable frontier model where user clarity — not model capability — is the bottleneck

## The 4 unknowns

| | **Known** | **Unknown** |
|---|---|---|
| **You know it** | Known Knowns — already in your prompt | Unknown Knowns — obvious to you, never stated |
| **You don't know it** | Known Unknowns — acknowledged gaps | Unknown Unknowns — things you haven't considered |

**Unknown Knowns** are the sneaky ones: assumptions so natural you don't think to state them. "Obviously the output should match the existing design language" — obvious to you, invisible to Claude.

**Unknown Unknowns** only surface after something goes wrong, unless you elicit them deliberately.

## Techniques to find and resolve unknowns

### Before you start
| Technique | How to use it |
|---|---|
| **Blind spot pass** | Prompt: "Before starting, list everything you'd need to know that I haven't told you." |
| **Interview mode** | Ask Claude to interview you about the task; its questions expose its unknowns |
| **Reference-based prompting** | Show examples instead of describing — reduces Unknown Knowns dramatically |
| **Implementation plan** | Have Claude write a plan first; review it for assumptions before approving |
| **Brainstorm first** | Generate 3 approaches before committing; different approaches surface different unknowns |

### During
| Technique | How to use it |
|---|---|
| **Implementation notes** | Ask Claude to document decisions and open questions as it goes; creates a surface for mid-task correction |

### After
| Technique | How to use it |
|---|---|
| **Explainer artifact** | Ask Claude to explain what it built and why; gaps in explanation reveal misunderstandings |
| **Quiz mode** | Have Claude quiz you on the output; tests whether you and Claude have the same mental model |

## Why Fable is different
Claude Fable follows instructions more literally and completely than prior models. That's a double edge: it executes well on clear specifications, but doesn't compensate for vague ones by guessing conservatively. The quality ceiling moved up; so did the cost of incomplete specs.

Prior pattern: vague prompt → model fills gaps conservatively → mediocre but acceptable output.
Fable pattern: vague prompt → model follows the specification literally → output misses what you didn't say.

## Relationship to context engineering
This framework is a pre-flight protocol for context engineering. [[3-Layer Context Engineering System]] covers what layers to provide (functional, visual, data). This framework covers how to discover what you've forgotten to include.

## Applicability to James's repos

- **qip-qien** — The triage prompt has Unknown Knowns baked in (Ramón's domain assumptions, what "good" looks like in a deviation response). Build a blind spot pass into the agent's first step before it drafts a response.
- **TradingBot25** — Before a Claude Code session on new strategy logic, run an interview: "what do you need to know about my risk constraints, position sizing model, and data shape before writing this?" Prevents refactors.
- **congressional-trading** — Reference-based prompting for scoring: provide 3 annotated example trades (score + why) before asking Claude to score new ones. Eliminates Unknown Knowns about scoring criteria.
- **betterSkills / general Claude Code work** — Blind spot pass before any long agentic session. Cost: ~1 extra tool call. Value: catches Unknown Knowns before they produce wrong output at the end of a 20-step task.

## Related
- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — source post with worked video editing example
- [[Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5]] — model reference (API, tokenizer, fallback)
- [[3-Layer Context Engineering System]] — what context layers to provide (complementary)
- [[Claude Code Dynamic Workflows]] — the orchestration layer these techniques live inside
- [[Builder-Verifier Loop Pattern]] — verification pattern (post-implementation); pairs with Quiz mode here


File created successfully at: /workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/concepts/Finding Your Unknowns Framework.md (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)

# Finding Your Unknowns Framework

**Origin:** Thariq Shihipar (Anthropic), July 6, 2026
**Source:** [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]]
**Applies to:** Claude Fable and any capable frontier model where user clarity — not model capability — is the bottleneck

## The 4 unknowns

| | **Known** | **Unknown** |
|---|---|---|
| **You know it** | Known Knowns — already in your prompt | Unknown Knowns — obvious to you, never stated |
| **You don't know it** | Known Unknowns — acknowledged gaps | Unknown Unknowns — things you haven't considered |

**Unknown Knowns** are the sneaky ones: assumptions so natural you don't think to state them. "Obviously the output should match the existing design language" — obvious to you, invisible to Claude.

**Unknown Unknowns** only surface after something goes wrong, unless you elicit them deliberately.

## Techniques to find and resolve unknowns

### Before you start
| Technique | How to use it |
|---|---|
| **Blind spot pass** | Prompt: "Before starting, list everything you'd need to know that I haven't told you." |
| **Interview mode** | Ask Claude to interview you about the task; its questions expose its unknowns |
| **Reference-based prompting** | Show examples instead of describing — reduces Unknown Knowns dramatically |
| **Implementation plan** | Have Claude write a plan first; review it for assumptions before approving |
| **Brainstorm first** | Generate 3 approaches before committing; different approaches surface different unknowns |

### During
| Technique | How to use it |
|---|---|
| **Implementation notes** | Ask Claude to document decisions and open questions as it goes; creates a surface for mid-task correction |

### After
| Technique | How to use it |
|---|---|
| **Explainer artifact** | Ask Claude to explain what it built and why; gaps in explanation reveal misunderstandings |
| **Quiz mode** | Have Claude quiz you on the output; tests whether you and Claude have the same mental model |

## Why Fable is different
Claude Fable follows instructions more literally and completely than prior models. That's a double edge: it executes well on clear specifications, but doesn't compensate for vague ones by guessing conservatively. The quality ceiling moved up; so did the cost of incomplete specs.

Prior pattern: vague prompt → model fills gaps conservatively → mediocre but acceptable output.
Fable pattern: vague prompt → model follows the specification literally → output misses what you didn't say.

## Relationship to context engineering
This framework is a pre-flight protocol for context engineering. [[3-Layer Context Engineering System]] covers what layers to provide (functional, visual, data). This framework covers how to discover what you've forgotten to include.

## Applicability to James's repos

- **qip-qien** — The triage prompt has Unknown Knowns baked in (Ramón's domain assumptions, what "good" looks like in a deviation response). Build a blind spot pass into the agent's first step before it drafts a response.
- **TradingBot25** — Before a Claude Code session on new strategy logic, run an interview: "what do you need to know about my risk constraints, position sizing model, and data shape before writing this?" Prevents refactors.
- **congressional-trading** — Reference-based prompting for scoring: provide 3 annotated example trades (score + why) before asking Claude to score new ones. Eliminates Unknown Knowns about scoring criteria.
- **betterSkills / general Claude Code work** — Blind spot pass before any long agentic session. Cost: ~1 extra tool call. Value: catches Unknown Knowns before they produce wrong output at the end of a 20-step task.

## Related
- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — source post with worked video editing example
- [[Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5]] — model reference (API, tokenizer, fallback)
- [[3-Layer Context Engineering System]] — what context layers to provide (complementary)
- [[Claude Code Dynamic Workflows]] — the orchestration layer these techniques live inside
- [[Builder-Verifier Loop Pattern]] — verification pattern (post-implementation); pairs with Quiz mode here


Now update Home.md (Sources and Concepts sections), the Claude Fable tool page, and the ingest log.


Edit

- [[Claude Code Dynamic Workflows]] — Claude writes its own JS orchestration harness on the fly (`ultracode` keyword). 6 patterns: classify-and-act, fan-out-and-synthesize, adversarial verification, generate-and-filter, tournament, loop-until-done. Opus 4.8 era.

- [[Claude Code Dynamic Workflows]] — Claude writes its own JS orchestration harness on the fly (`ultracode` keyword). 6 patterns: classify-and-act, fan-out-and-synthesize, adversarial verification, generate-and-filter, tournament, loop-until-done. Opus 4.8 era.
- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — Pre-flight protocol for agentic work. 4-quadrant unknowns model (Known/Unknown × Knowns/Unknowns) + 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference prompting, implementation plan, explainer artifact, quiz mode). Fable-era shift: user clarity is now the bottleneck, not model capability.


The file /workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/Home.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)

- [[Claude Code Dynamic Workflows]] — Claude writes its own JS orchestration harness on the fly (`ultracode` keyword). 6 patterns: classify-and-act, fan-out-and-synthesize, adversarial verification, generate-and-filter, tournament, loop-until-done. Opus 4.8 era.
- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — Pre-flight protocol for agentic work. 4-quadrant unknowns model (Known/Unknown × Knowns/Unknowns) + 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference prompting, implementation plan, explainer artifact, quiz mode). Fable-era shift: user clarity is now the bottleneck, not model capability.

- [[But For Real Skill]] — Self-audit pattern: follow-up prompt that assumes bugs are present and bullies the AI into finding them. Simulates PR code review. From Josh Pigford's solo-founder skills stack.

- [[Claude Code Agent Teams]] — Native experimental feature: Team Lead + Teammates model with shared task list, dependency management, plan approval, and hooks. Enable via env flag. Claude Code only (no Codex/Aider).

+- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — Pre-flight protocol for agentic work. 4-quadrant unknowns model (Known/Unknown × Knowns/Unknowns) + 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference prompting, implementation plan, explainer artifact, quiz mode). Fable-era shift: user clarity is now the bottleneck, not model capability.

- [[AI-Native Engineering Org]] — Fiona Fung (Claude Code eng director): JIT planning, Claude reviews style/bugs/humans review domain, kill obsolete processes, track ramp time + PR cycle time + Claude-assisted commit rate.

- [[Claude Code Skills Best Practices]] — Thariq Shihipar: 9 skill categories, Gotchas sections, progressive disclosure via file system, trigger keywords, `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA}` memory, on-demand hooks. From Anthropic's own usage.

- [[X AI Signal Ingestion Source]] — Regular monitored X source for high-signal AI voices. Uses browser-visible/public pages only; no credential extraction or social-account side effects.


- [[AdiiX - Claude Trading Bot Architecture]] — June 9, 2026. 7.1M views. Claude Code writes trading logic; Claude Cowork sends 7am/9pm daily briefings. Multi-asset: SPX/NDX mean reversion (15m), crypto momentum (1h), commodities trend (4h). ATR sizing + correlation filter. No repo — marketing post. Architecture applicable to tradingbot25 and congressional-trading.

- [[AdiiX - Claude Trading Bot Architecture]] — June 9, 2026. 7.1M views. Claude Code writes trading logic; Claude Cowork sends 7am/9pm daily briefings. Multi-asset: SPX/NDX mean reversion (15m), crypto momentum (1h), commodities trend (4h). ATR sizing + correlation filter. No repo — marketing post. Architecture applicable to tradingbot25 and congressional-trading.
- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — July 6, 2026. Thariq Shihipar. 4-quadrant unknowns framework, 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference prompting, implementation plan, explainer, quiz). Core claim: with Fable, output quality is now bottlenecked by user clarity, not model capability.


- [[AdiiX - Claude Trading Bot Architecture]] — June 9, 2026. 7.1M views. Claude Code writes trading logic; Claude Cowork sends 7am/9pm daily briefings. Multi-asset: SPX/NDX mean reversion (15m), crypto momentum (1h), commodities trend (4h). ATR sizing + correlation filter. No repo — marketing post. Architecture applicable to tradingbot25 and congressional-trading.
- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — July 6, 2026. Thariq Shihipar. 4-quadrant unknowns framework, 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference prompting, implementation plan, explainer, quiz). Core claim: with Fable, output quality is now bottlenecked by user clarity, not model capability.

- [[Boris Cherny - Self-Verification Loops]] — June 9, 2026. Cherny's own statement: self-verification is the mechanism that enables longer autonomous runs. Cites ClaudeDevs video by Delba de Oliveira (839K views).

- [[DCBitMax - Bitcoin Power Law Out-of-Sample Test]] — June 10, 2026. Out-of-sample validation of Bitcoin Power Law using Claude Opus 4.8. Froze model at 2016 → 10-year mean residual −0.05σ. Same validation methodology applies to congressional-trading.

+- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — July 6, 2026. Thariq Shihipar. 4-quadrant unknowns framework, 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference prompting, implementation plan, explainer, quiz). Core claim: with Fable, output quality is now bottlenecked by user clarity, not model capability.


/workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/tools/Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5.md

## Related

- [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]] — Practitioner capability reports (Karpathy, Mollick, Shipper, Willison)
- [[Frontier Model Qualitative Step Change]] — Pattern for evaluating major model jumps
- [[AgentsView]] — Cost accounting when pricing databases lag launch
- [[Managed Agents]] — Opus 4.8 tool-description guidance (applicable to Fable 5 behavioral profile)
- [[Anthropic Skills Repo]] — Source of the migration guide and API reference

## Practical usage guidance

Anthropic published a field guide (July 6, 2026) on how to work effectively with Fable:

> "Claude Fable is the first model where the quality of the work is bottlenecked by your ability to clarify its unknowns."

Fable executes instructions more literally and completely than prior models — the gap is no longer model capability, it's your specification quality. See [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] for a pre-flight protocol.

## Related

- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — Practical prompting guide: 4-quadrant unknowns model + 8 elicitation techniques
- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — Concept page distilling the field guide framework
- [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]] — Practitioner capability reports (Karpathy, Mollick, Shipper, Willison)
- [[Frontier Model Qualitative Step Change]] — Pattern for evaluating major model jumps
- [[AgentsView]] — Cost accounting when pricing databases lag launch
- [[Managed Agents]] — Opus 4.8 tool-description guidance (applicable to Fable 5 behavioral profile)
- [[Anthropic Skills Repo]] — Source of the migration guide and API reference


The file /workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/tools/Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)

## Practical usage guidance

Anthropic published a field guide (July 6, 2026) on how to work effectively with Fable:

> "Claude Fable is the first model where the quality of the work is bottlenecked by your ability to clarify its unknowns."

Fable executes instructions more literally and completely than prior models — the gap is no longer model capability, it's your specification quality. See [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] for a pre-flight protocol.

## Related

- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — Practical prompting guide: 4-quadrant unknowns model + 8 elicitation techniques
- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — Concept page distilling the field guide framework
- [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]] — Practitioner capability reports (Karpathy, Mollick, Shipper, Willison)
- [[Frontier Model Qualitative Step Change]] — Pattern for evaluating major model jumps
- [[AgentsView]] — Cost accounting when pricing databases lag launch
- [[Managed Agents]] — Opus 4.8 tool-description guidance (applicable to Fable 5 behavioral profile)
- [[Anthropic Skills Repo]] — Source of the migration guide and API reference

# Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

**Type:** Frontier Claude models
**By:** Anthropic
**Status:** Fable 5 (GA), Mythos 5 (Preview)
**Source:** `anthropics/skills` — claude-api skill commit #1294 (June 9, 2026)

## What they are

**Claude Mythos 5** — The underlying frontier model. Preview availability.

**Claude Fable 5** — Same model as Mythos with Anthropic's additional safety/alignment layer applied. The production-ready version. Launch benchmark: state-of-the-art across most tested benchmarks; lead grows as tasks get longer and more complex (reported by practitioners — see [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]]).

## Key API differences from prior Claude models

### Always-on adaptive thinking
- Adaptive thinking is always on for Fable 5 — cannot be disabled.
- Sending `extended_thinking: { enabled: false }` returns HTTP 400.
- Plan for thinking token overhead in context budgets.

### New tokenizer
- Approximately **30% more tokens** per equivalent input compared to prior Claude models.
- Cost accounting must be recalibrated — don't assume prior per-task estimates carry over.
- Use [[AgentsView]] or independent accounting to track actual spend at launch (pricing databases may lag).

### Protected-thinking display and replay rules
- Extended thinking blocks have display/replay restrictions.
- Review Anthropic's current docs for exact rules before surfacing thinking content in products.

### Refusal stop reason + classifier fallback

Fable 5 has conservative classifiers that block requests in three specific areas:

| `stop_details.category` | Fires on |
|---|---|
| `"cyber"` | Offensive cybersecurity content — exploits, malware, attack tooling |
| `"bio"` | Biology / life-sciences — lab methods, molecular mechanisms |
| `"reasoning_extraction"` | Requests attempting to extract the model's summarized thinking |

Response shape on a block:
```json
{
  "stop_reason": "refusal",
  "stop_details": {
    "type": "refusal",
    "category": "cyber",
    "explanation": "..."
  }
}
```

Branch on **`stop_reason`**, not `content` or `stop_details`. `stop_details` can be `null` — treat that as a generic refusal.

**Server-side fallback (recommended):** Pass `fallbacks: [{"model": "claude-opus-4-8"}]` + beta header. On a classifier block, the API automatically retries with Opus 4.8. Currently supported on Claude API and Claude Platform on AWS.

```bash
-H "anthropic-beta: server-side-fallback-2026-06-01"
"fallbacks": [{ "model": "claude-opus-4-8" }]
```

**`stop_details.recommended_model`** — populated only when fallbacks are configured but the fallback model couldn't execute (rate-limited/overloaded). Names the model to retry directly.

**Billing change (when NOT using server-side fallback):** `stop_details.fallback_credit_token` lets you bill the fallback request as a cache read (cheaper). Requires action if you handle fallback client-side.

Source: `claude-cookbooks/fable_5_fallback_billing/guide.ipynb` (June 2026)

The skills repo also ships **SDK fallback middleware** for handling `"refusal"` stop_reason in production SDK flows.

### Data retention
- 30-day data-retention requirement (stricter than prior models in some configurations).
- Relevant for regulated use cases (HIPAA, etc.).

## Migration

Anthropic added a full "Migrating to Claude Fable 5" guide + checklist to the claude-api skill:

1. **Tokenizer recalibration** — update cost estimates, re-validate context-window budgets.
2. **Thinking opt-out removal** — remove any `extended_thinking: false` from request payloads.
3. **Refusal stop reason** — add `"refusal"` to stop_reason handlers and wire in SDK fallback middleware.
4. **Data retention review** — check compliance posture against the 30-day window.
5. **Prompt re-tuning** — Fable/Mythos has behavioral changes vs 4.x models; prompts that were tuned for 4.7 or Opus 4.8 may need adjustments (not API breaking changes, behavioral shifts).

**Mythos Preview path:** Separate migration checklist in the skill for moving from Mythos Preview → GA or Fable 5.

## Practical notes for James's stack

- **congressional-trading** — Recalibrate token budgets for any Fable 5 runs; the 30% tokenizer difference directly affects context window planning.
- **qip-qien** — Fable 5's strong performance on long, complex knowledge-work tasks (9+ hour autonomous sessions reported by Ethan Mollick) makes it the right model for the expert-draft pipeline when conviction threshold is high.
- **Pool Monitor / Arduino** — No impact; those are Python scripts with no Claude API calls.

## Related

- [[X AI Signal Sweep - 2026-06-09]] — Practitioner capability reports (Karpathy, Mollick, Shipper, Willison)
- [[Frontier Model Qualitative Step Change]] — Pattern for evaluating major model jumps
- [[AgentsView]] — Cost accounting when pricing databases lag launch
- [[Managed Agents]] — Opus 4.8 tool-description guidance (applicable to Fable 5 behavioral profile)
- [[Anthropic Skills Repo]] — Source of the migration guide and API reference

+Anthropic published a field guide (July 6, 2026) on how to work effectively with Fable:

+> "Claude Fable is the first model where the quality of the work is bottlenecked by your ability to clarify its unknowns."

+Fable executes instructions more literally and completely than prior models — the gap is no longer model capability, it's your specification quality. See [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] for a pre-flight protocol.

+- [[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]] — Practical prompting guide: 4-quadrant unknowns model + 8 elicitation techniques

+- [[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]] — Concept page distilling the field guide framework


Now update the ingest log with a new entry at the top of today's section:


## 2026-07-06

- **[[CLAUDE.md Progressive Disclosure]]**

## 2026-07-06

- **[[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]]** (new source) — July 6. Thariq Shihipar. Practical field guide for working with Claude Fable: the 4-quadrant unknowns model (Known/Unknown × Knowns/Unknowns) and 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference-based prompting, implementation plan, explainer artifact, quiz mode). Core claim: output quality is now bottlenecked by user clarity, not model capability. Worked example: end-to-end video editing.
- **[[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]]** (new concept) — Distilled from the field guide. Pre-flight protocol for agentic work. Includes applicability notes for qip-qien (build blind spot pass into triage prompt), TradingBot25 (interview before new strategy sessions), and congressional-trading (reference-based scoring examples).
- **[[Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5]]** (updated) — Added "Practical usage guidance" section linking to the field guide and the unknowns framework.

- **[[CLAUDE.md Progressive Disclosure]]**


The file /workspace/extra/second-brain/wiki/Wiki Ingest Log.md has been updated successfully. (file state is current in your context — no need to Read it back)

## 2026-07-06

- **[[CLAUDE.md Progressive Disclosure]]**

## 2026-07-06

- **[[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]]** (new source) — July 6. Thariq Shihipar. Practical field guide for working with Claude Fable: the 4-quadrant unknowns model (Known/Unknown × Knowns/Unknowns) and 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference-based prompting, implementation plan, explainer artifact, quiz mode). Core claim: output quality is now bottlenecked by user clarity, not model capability. Worked example: end-to-end video editing.
- **[[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]]** (new concept) — Distilled from the field guide. Pre-flight protocol for agentic work. Includes applicability notes for qip-qien (build blind spot pass into triage prompt), TradingBot25 (interview before new strategy sessions), and congressional-trading (reference-based scoring examples).
- **[[Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5]]** (updated) — Added "Practical usage guidance" section linking to the field guide and the unknowns framework.

- **[[CLAUDE.md Progressive Disclosure]]**

+- **[[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]]** (new source) — July 6. Thariq Shihipar. Practical field guide for working with Claude Fable: the 4-quadrant unknowns model (Known/Unknown × Knowns/Unknowns) and 8 elicitation techniques (blind spot pass, interview mode, reference-based prompting, implementation plan, explainer artifact, quiz mode). Core claim: output quality is now bottlenecked by user clarity, not model capability. Worked example: end-to-end video editing.

+- **[[Finding Your Unknowns Framework]]** (new concept) — Distilled from the field guide. Pre-flight protocol for agentic work. Includes applicability notes for qip-qien (build blind spot pass into triage prompt), TradingBot25 (interview before new strategy sessions), and congressional-trading (reference-based scoring examples).

+- **[[Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5]]** (updated) — Added "Practical usage guidance" section linking to the field guide and the unknowns framework.

- **[[CLAUDE.md Progressive Disclosure]]** (new concept, internal-origin) — Method from the root CLAUDE.md audit: measure per-section token cost, classify sections by *when needed* (always-relevant stays inline compressed; situational moves to `.claude/docs/` behind trigger-phrased pointers), add a size-budget guardrail against regrowth. First application: 16.3KB → ~9KB, zero facts lost.

- **[[X - EXM7777 - Do This On Your Last Day With Fable]]** (new source) — X Article by @EXM7777 (Machina). Tactical playbook for extracting durable artifacts from a frontier model before it moves to pay-per-token. Five moves: workspace standards, consultant audit, second brain run, `/goal` + dynamic workflows, extract-approach skill.

- **[[Frontier Model Extraction Strategy]]** (new concept) — The underlying pattern: frontier judgment required to *create*, ordinary intelligence sufficient to *use*. The irreversibility filter test: "Can a cheaper model redo this tomorrow?"


Done. Sending message to James.

<message to="telegram-mg-17796">
Claude blog — 1 new post ingested (July 6):

**[[Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable]]** — by Thariq Shihipar (same author as Dynamic Workflows)

Core idea: *"Claude Fable is the first model where the quality of the work is bottlenecked by your ability to clarify its unknowns."* The post is a practical framework for finding what you've forgotten to tell Claude before a long agentic task.

**What was created:**
- New source page: `Claude Blog - Field Guide to Claude Fable.md`
- New concept page: `Finding Your Unknowns Framework.md` — 4-quadrant unknowns model + 8 elicitation techniques with applicability notes for your repos
- Updated `Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5.md` — added practical usage section

**The framework in brief:**
- Unknown Knowns (obvious context you didn't state) and Unknown Unknowns (things you haven't considered) are the expensive gaps
- Key technique: **Blind spot pass** — ask Claude "list everything you'd need to know that I haven't told you" before starting
- Other techniques: interview mode, reference-based prompting, implementation plan first, explainer artifact, quiz mode post-task

**Repo applicability noted in the concept page:**
- qip-qien: build a blind spot pass into the triage prompt before the agent drafts a response
- TradingBot25: run an interview before any new strategy logic session
- congressional-trading: reference-based prompting for scoring (show 3 annotated example trades before asking Claude to score new ones)

Wiki pages:
https://jamess-mac-studio.tail02a1a0.ts.net/second-brain/#Claude%20Blog%20-%20Field%20Guide%20to%20Claude%20Fable
https://jamess-mac-studio.tail02a1a0.ts.net/second-brain/#Finding%20Your%20Unknowns%20Framework
</message>


<context timezone="America/Chicago" />
<task from="telegram-mg-17796" time="Jul 6, 2026, 11:45 PM">Instructions:
Prepare James daily portfolio brief. Read /workspace/extra/second-brain/portfolio/PLAN.md for the operating model, then read BOARD.md, all projects/*.md cards, and /workspace/agent/repo-awareness.md. Compare activity and dated Notes with the prior brief when available. Reply directly in this Telegram DM with a phone-readable brief under 20 lines: Moved (new activity since the previous brief), Stalled (items blocked on James for more than about 2 days), and Decisions (at most 3 numbered, concrete short-answer questions). While seeded cards remain unconfirmed, use card confirmation as a decision question. Ask at most one metric-definition question per brief. Never invent project goals. Use only stages research, discovery, spec, build, test, feedback, maintain. Do not modify the board during the brief; when James later answers, update the relevant card Goal, Stage, and Next action, append a dated Notes line, update the BOARD.md row, and remove answered items from its Decision queue. If nothing moved, say so plainly; still surface the highest-value decision question.</task>


Let me read the portfolio files to prepare the daily brief.


1	# Portfolio Operating Model — Plan & Decisions
2
3	**Owner:** James · **Created:** 2026-07-06 · **Status:** Tier 1 live
4
5	The goal: James operates as VP of Product across his project portfolio — setting
6	direction and taste, while agents carry research → discovery → spec → build → test →
7	feedback. This doc is the durable record of the plan and the decisions made.
8
9	## Framework decision: stay on NanoClaw
10
11	Evaluated 2026-07-06 against Hermes (Nous Research — model-agnostic, skill-learning
12	loop), OpenClaw (largest ecosystem, weakest isolation story), and NemoClaw (NVIDIA
13	enterprise platform — wrong fit for solo use). Decision: **stay on NanoClaw**.
14	The per-agent container isolation, `cli_scope`, and approval gates are exactly the
15	substrate needed once agents get write access to repos, and the accumulated
16	customization (ingestion modules, OneCLI vault, monitors, repo-awareness) compounds.
17	Adopt Hermes' *idea* (write a reusable skill after every solved problem — already the
18	monorepo Learning Law) without switching platforms. Escape hatch if Anthropic cost or
19	availability becomes a problem: `/add-opencode`, `/add-ollama-provider`.
20
21	## The three tiers
22
23	### Tier 1 — Board + daily brief (LIVE as of 2026-07-06)
24
25	- **Board**: `second-brain/portfolio/` — `BOARD.md` (index + decision queue) and
26	  `projects/*.md` (one card per active project). Mounted read-write into Nano's
27	  container at `/workspace/extra/second-brain/portfolio/`.
28	- **Daily brief**: scheduled task in Nano's Telegram DM session, 07:00 America/Chicago.
29	  Reads the board + repo-awareness (which now carries per-repo `Last activity` lines,
30	  refreshed every 30 min). Sends: what moved, what's stalled, ≤3 decision questions.
31	- **Decision queue**: James replies to the brief from his phone; Nano updates the
32	  board and cards. The queue comes to James — he never has to go look at anything.
33
34	### Tier 2 — Advance-one-stage loop (NEXT)
35
36	A scheduled/nightly run picks the highest-priority project with an unblocked next
37	action and moves it one stage (research → brief, brief → spec, spec → draft PR in a
38	git worktree). Each run ends with a **review packet** to Telegram: what it did, diff
39	summary, screenshot or test output, one question max. Prereqs before turning on:
40	- Per-project repo mounts into an agent container (or Claude Code sessions driven on
41	  the host) — decide per project.
42	- Review packet format agreed.
43	- Budget per run set.
44
45	### Tier 3 — Metric-driven autonomy (GATED)
46
47	Auto-merge below a size threshold when tests pass — allowed **per project, only once
48	that project's objective metric is named**. Five preconditions status:
49
50	| Precondition | Status |
51	|---|---|
52	| 1. Objective metric | ❌ **James-owned task** — name one per project on its card (`Metric:` field). Portfolio-level: user-visible improvements shipped/week at ≤2h of James's review time |
53	| 2. Measurement | Board diffs + git log + per-project checks; counter-metric: rework rate (% agent PRs rejected) |
54	| 3. Action space | Tier 2 actions + auto-merge (small, tested changes only) |
55	| 4. Stopping condition | Weekly token budget per project; pause a project if rework rate > ~30% |
56	| 5. Rollback | Everything is a PR on a branch; `git revert` + service restart |
57
58	## Decisions log (2026-07-06, James)
59
60	- **Board = plain files here, not Linear.** Rationale: agent-native (Nano and Claude
61	  Code both read/write files with zero API surface), no new habit required — Telegram
62	  is the phone interface, the board is just state. Linear can be layered later via
63	  nanoclaw's `/add-linear` if the habit ever sticks; the board content ports trivially.
64	- **Daily brief, not weekly**, to start. Dial back if it gets noisy.
65	- **Guard levels are per-project**, not global:
66	  - `review-required` — **TradingBot25** (deep time investment), **qip-qien**
67	    (customer trial in progress). Agent changes land as PRs; James approves merges.
68	  - `autonomous-ok` — everything else. James does not want to be a blocker; agents
69	    may proceed (branch + merge when tests pass) and report after the fact.
70	- **Tier 3 metrics are James's task** — captured as the `Metric:` field on each card;
71	  the daily brief may ask for at most one metric definition at a time.
72	- **index-repos runs every 30 min** (launchd `com.james.nanoclaw-repo-index`,
73	  logs to `nanoclaw/logs/repo-index.log`). It is deterministic (filesystem + GitHub
74	  REST, no LLM calls) so frequency is nearly free. Future upgrade: event-driven
75	  trigger on board edits / Claude Code session end (Stop hook) if 30 min ever feels
76	  stale.
77	- **Reddit ingestion is not a blocker and not waiting on James's testing.** It was
78	  effectively tested 2026-06-13: Reddit's unauthenticated `.json` API is 403-blocked
79	  at the edge, so every fetch fails gracefully (`status:failed`). To make it work:
80	  James registers a Reddit "script" app (his task), then an agent adds the OAuth
81	  client_credentials flow against `oauth.reddit.com`. Until then the module is
82	  harmless dead weight.
83
84	## Loose ends (tracked, not urgent)
85
86	- nanoclaw working tree has uncommitted Slack-channel install files
87	  (`src/channels/slack.ts`, setup scripts) from wiring #ingest-into-wiki — commit them.
88	- `nanoclaw/groups/main/` contains stale v1-era instructions (WhatsApp JIDs, IPC
89	  paths) — dead weight, clear when convenient.
90	- Ramon's Telegram DM (`telegram:8957631641`) is wired to the *same* Nano agent group
91	  as James's. Fine for now; revisit isolation if his usage grows.
92
93	## Conventions
94
95	- Stage vocabulary (fixed): `research → discovery → spec → build → test → feedback → maintain`
96	- Card fields: Repo, Goal, Stage, Guard, Metric, Blocked on James, Next action, Notes
97	  (dated, append-only).
98	- Nano updates cards from brief replies; anyone (James, Claude Code sessions) may edit
99	  the board directly — it's just files in git.
100

# Portfolio Operating Model — Plan & Decisions

**Owner:** James · **Created:** 2026-07-06 · **Status:** Tier 1 live

The goal: James operates as VP of Product across his project portfolio — setting
direction and taste, while agents carry research → discovery → spec → build → test →
feedback. This doc is the durable record of the plan and the decisions made.

## Framework decision: stay on NanoClaw

Evaluated 2026-07-06 against Hermes (Nous Research — model-agnostic, skill-learning
loop), OpenClaw (largest ecosystem, weakest isolation story), and NemoClaw (NVIDIA
enterprise platform — wrong fit for solo use). Decision: **stay on NanoClaw**.
The per-agent container isolation, `cli_scope`, and approval gates are exactly the
substrate needed once agents get write access to repos, and the accumulated
customization (ingestion modules, OneCLI vault, monitors, repo-awareness) compounds.
Adopt Hermes' *idea* (write a reusable skill after every solved problem — already the
monorepo Learning Law) without switching platforms. Escape hatch if Anthropic cost or
availability becomes a problem: `/add-opencode`, `/add-ollama-provider`.

## The three tiers

### Tier 1 — Board + daily brief (LIVE as of 2026-07-06)

- **Board**: `second-brain/portfolio/` — `BOARD.md` (index + decision queue) and
  `projects/*.md` (one card per active project). Mounted read-write into Nano's
  container at `/workspace/extra/second-brain/portfolio/`.
- **Daily brief**: scheduled task in Nano's Telegram DM session, 07:00 America/Chicago.
  Reads the board + repo-awareness (which now carries per-repo `Last activity` lines,
  refreshed every 30 min). Sends: what moved, what's stalled, ≤3 decision questions.
- **Decision queue**: James replies to the brief from his phone; Nano updates the
  board and cards. The queue comes to James — he never has to go look at anything.

### Tier 2 — Advance-one-stage loop (NEXT)

A scheduled/nightly run picks the highest-priority project with an unblocked next
action and moves it one stage (research → brief, brief → spec, spec → draft PR in a
git worktree). Each run ends with a **review packet** to Telegram: what it did, diff
summary, screenshot or test output, one question max. Prereqs before turning on:
- Per-project repo mounts into an agent container (or Claude Code sessions driven on
  the host) — decide per project.
- Review packet format agreed.
- Budget per run set.

### Tier 3 — Metric-driven autonomy (GATED)

Auto-merge below a size threshold when tests pass — allowed **per project, only once
that project's objective metric is named**. Five preconditions status:

| Precondition | Status |
|---|---|
| 1. Objective metric | ❌ **James-owned task** — name one per project on its card (`Metric:` field). Portfolio-level: user-visible improvements shipped/week at ≤2h of James's review time |
| 2. Measurement | Board diffs + git log + per-project checks; counter-metric: rework rate (% agent PRs rejected) |
| 3. Action space | Tier 2 actions + auto-merge (small, tested changes only) |
| 4. Stopping condition | Weekly token budget per project; pause a project if rework rate > ~30% |
| 5. Rollback | Everything is a PR on a branch; `git revert` + service restart |

## Decisions log (2026-07-06, James)

- **Board = plain files here, not Linear.** Rationale: agent-native (Nano and Claude
  Code both read/write files with zero API surface), no new habit required — Telegram
  is the phone interface, the board is just state. Linear can be layered later via
  nanoclaw's `/add-linear` if the habit ever sticks; the board content ports trivially.
- **Daily brief, not weekly**, to start. Dial back if it gets noisy.
- **Guard levels are per-project**, not global:
  - `review-required` — **TradingBot25** (deep time investment), **qip-qien**
    (customer trial in progress). Agent changes land as PRs; James approves merges.
  - `autonomous-ok` — everything else. James does not want to be a blocker; agents
    may proceed (branch + merge when tests pass) and report after the fact.
- **Tier 3 metrics are James's task** — captured as the `Metric:` field on each card;
  the daily brief may ask for at most one metric definition at a time.
- **index-repos runs every 30 min** (launchd `com.james.nanoclaw-repo-index`,
  logs to `nanoclaw/logs/repo-index.log`). It is deterministic (filesystem + GitHub
  REST, no LLM calls) so frequency is nearly free. Future upgrade: event-driven
  trigger on board edits / Claude Code session end (Stop hook) if 30 min ever feels
  stale.
- **Reddit ingestion is not a blocker and not waiting on James's testing.** It was
  effectively tested 2026-06-13: Reddit's unauthenticated `.json` API is 403-blocked
  at the edge, so every fetch fails gracefully (`status:failed`). To make it work:
  James registers a Reddit "script" app (his task), then an agent adds the OAuth
  client_credentials flow against `oauth.reddit.com`. Until then the module is
  harmless dead weight.

## Loose ends (tracked, not urgent)

- nanoclaw working tree has uncommitted Slack-channel install files
  (`src/channels/slack.ts`, setup scripts) from wiring #ingest-into-wiki — commit them.
- `nanoclaw/groups/main/` contains stale v1-era instructions (WhatsApp JIDs, IPC
  paths) — dead weight, clear when convenient.
- Ramon's Telegram DM (`telegram:8957631641`) is wired to the *same* Nano agent group
  as James's. Fine for now; revisit isolation if his usage grows.

## Conventions

- Stage vocabulary (fixed): `research → discovery → spec → build → test → feedback → maintain`
- Card fields: Repo, Goal, Stage, Guard, Metric, Blocked on James, Next action, Notes
  (dated, append-only).
- Nano updates cards from brief replies; anyone (James, Claude Code sessions) may edit
  the board directly — it's just files in git.


1	# Portfolio Board
2
3	One row per active project. Cards with full detail live in `projects/`.
4	Operating model + decisions: [PLAN.md](PLAN.md).
5	Stages: `research → discovery → spec → build → test → feedback → maintain`.
6	Guard: `review-required` (James approves merges) or `autonomous-ok` (agents proceed, report after).
7
8	**Seeded 2026-07-06 from git activity — stages and next actions are drafts until James confirms.**
9
10	| Project | Stage | Guard | Next action | Blocked on James | Last activity |
11	|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12	| [qip-qien](projects/qip-qien.md) | feedback | review-required | Confirm goal + trial status in brief | confirm card | 2026-07-06 |
13	| [congressional-trading](projects/congressional-trading.md) | test | autonomous-ok | Confirm shadow-measurement exit criteria | confirm card | 2026-07-06 |
14	| [FindRefurbishedAppleProduct](projects/FindRefurbishedAppleProduct.md) | discovery | autonomous-ok | Confirm goal — brand new repo | confirm card | 2026-07-06 |
15	| [TradingBot25](projects/TradingBot25.md) | build | review-required | Confirm goal + current strategy state | confirm card | 2026-06-26 |
16	| [AgenticLever](projects/AgenticLever.md) | build | autonomous-ok | Confirm goal | confirm card | 2026-06-29 |
17	| [pool-monitor](projects/pool-monitor.md) | maintain | autonomous-ok | None — steady state? confirm | confirm card | 2026-06-17 |
18	| [MentorCore](projects/MentorCore.md) | test | autonomous-ok | Work the live validation punch list? | confirm card | 2026-06-11 |
19	| [RoadSense](projects/RoadSense.md) | test | autonomous-ok | Confirm goal + deployment state | confirm card | 2026-06-06 |
20	| [nanoclaw](projects/nanoclaw.md) | build | autonomous-ok | Commit Slack files; Reddit OAuth app (James) | reddit app registration | 2026-06-13 |
21
22	## Decision queue
23
24	Questions for James, appended by Nano; answered items move to the card's Notes and are removed here.
25
26	- (empty — first daily brief will ask to confirm the seeded cards above)
27
28	## Recently shipped
29
30	- (empty)
31

# Portfolio Board

One row per active project. Cards with full detail live in `projects/`.
Operating model + decisions: [PLAN.md](PLAN.md).
Stages: `research → discovery → spec → build → test → feedback → maintain`.
Guard: `review-required` (James approves merges) or `autonomous-ok` (agents proceed, report after).

**Seeded 2026-07-06 from git activity — stages and next actions are drafts until James confirms.**

| Project | Stage | Guard | Next action | Blocked on James | Last activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [qip-qien](projects/qip-qien.md) | feedback | review-required | Confirm goal + trial status in brief | confirm card | 2026-07-06 |
| [congressional-trading](projects/congressional-trading.md) | test | autonomous-ok | Confirm shadow-measurement exit criteria | confirm card | 2026-07-06 |
| [FindRefurbishedAppleProduct](projects/FindRefurbishedAppleProduct.md) | discovery | autonomous-ok | Confirm goal — brand new repo | confirm card | 2026-07-06 |
| [TradingBot25](projects/TradingBot25.md) | build | review-required | Confirm goal + current strategy state | confirm card | 2026-06-26 |
| [AgenticLever](projects/AgenticLever.md) | build | autonomous-ok | Confirm goal | confirm card | 2026-06-29 |
| [pool-monitor](projects/pool-monitor.md) | maintain | autonomous-ok | None — steady state? confirm | confirm card | 2026-06-17 |
| [MentorCore](projects/MentorCore.md) | test | autonomous-ok | Work the live validation punch list? | confirm card | 2026-06-11 |
| [RoadSense](projects/RoadSense.md) | test | autonomous-ok | Confirm goal + deployment state | confirm card | 2026-06-06 |
| [nanoclaw](projects/nanoclaw.md) | build | autonomous-ok | Commit Slack files; Reddit OAuth app (James) | reddit app registration | 2026-06-13 |

## Decision queue

Questions for James, appended by Nano; answered items move to the card's Notes and are removed here.

- (empty — first daily brief will ask to confirm the seeded cards above)

## Recently shipped

- (empty)


AgenticLever.md
FindRefurbishedAppleProduct.md
MentorCore.md
RoadSense.md
TradingBot25.md
congressional-trading.md
nanoclaw.md
pool-monitor.md
qip-qien.md


1	# qip-qien
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/qip-ask-qien` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/qip-qien
4	- Goal: _to confirm — expert Q&A persona for medical-device quality (Ramon's domain)?_
5	- Stage: feedback (seeded — confirm)
6	- Guard: **review-required** — customer trial in progress
7	- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: trial-user questions answered satisfactorily/week)_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: confirm goal + trial status in daily brief
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "chore: log Fable model review findings" (same-day commit).
13

# qip-qien

- Repo: `~/projects/qip-ask-qien` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/qip-qien
- Goal: _to confirm — expert Q&A persona for medical-device quality (Ramon's domain)?_
- Stage: feedback (seeded — confirm)
- Guard: **review-required** — customer trial in progress
- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: trial-user questions answered satisfactorily/week)_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: confirm goal + trial status in daily brief

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "chore: log Fable model review findings" (same-day commit).


1	# congressional-trading
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/congressional-trading` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/congressional-trading
4	- Goal: _to confirm — CongressWatch: score congressional trade disclosures, push high-conviction signals?_
5	- Stage: test (seeded — confirm; shadow measurement active)
6	- Guard: autonomous-ok
7	- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: signal precision over shadow period)_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: confirm shadow-measurement exit criteria (what result graduates it?)
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Keep shadow measurement active during..." (same-day commit). Runs on always-on machine.
13

# congressional-trading

- Repo: `~/projects/congressional-trading` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/congressional-trading
- Goal: _to confirm — CongressWatch: score congressional trade disclosures, push high-conviction signals?_
- Stage: test (seeded — confirm; shadow measurement active)
- Guard: autonomous-ok
- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: signal precision over shadow period)_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: confirm shadow-measurement exit criteria (what result graduates it?)

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Keep shadow measurement active during..." (same-day commit). Runs on always-on machine.


1	# TradingBot25
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/TradingBot25` · private GitHub
4	- Goal: _to confirm — multi-asset Claude trading bot (Claude Code writes logic, daily briefings)?_
5	- Stage: build (seeded — confirm)
6	- Guard: **review-required** — deep time investment
7	- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidates: backtest PnL, live PnL vs benchmark)_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: confirm goal + current strategy state
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Weights update" (2026-06-26).
13

# TradingBot25

- Repo: `~/projects/TradingBot25` · private GitHub
- Goal: _to confirm — multi-asset Claude trading bot (Claude Code writes logic, daily briefings)?_
- Stage: build (seeded — confirm)
- Guard: **review-required** — deep time investment
- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidates: backtest PnL, live PnL vs benchmark)_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: confirm goal + current strategy state

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Weights update" (2026-06-26).


1	# AgenticLever
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/AgenticLever` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/AgenticLever-website
4	- Goal: _to confirm — solution-selling site with question-led discovery flow?_
5	- Stage: build (seeded — confirm)
6	- Guard: autonomous-ok
7	- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidates: interest sign-ups/week, discovery-flow completion rate)_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: confirm goal
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "feat: add NTFY_CLICK_URL support" (2026-06-29). Working tree has uncommitted changes.
13

# AgenticLever

- Repo: `~/projects/AgenticLever` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/AgenticLever-website
- Goal: _to confirm — solution-selling site with question-led discovery flow?_
- Stage: build (seeded — confirm)
- Guard: autonomous-ok
- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidates: interest sign-ups/week, discovery-flow completion rate)_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: confirm goal

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "feat: add NTFY_CLICK_URL support" (2026-06-29). Working tree has uncommitted changes.


1	# FindRefurbishedAppleProduct
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/FindRefurbishedAppleProduct`
4	- Goal: _to confirm — brand new (initial commit today)_
5	- Stage: discovery (seeded — confirm)
6	- Guard: autonomous-ok
7	- Metric: _undefined_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: confirm goal and whether this is a monitor (alert on refurb stock?) or a site
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Initial commit: refurbished Apple ..." (same-day).
13

# FindRefurbishedAppleProduct

- Repo: `~/projects/FindRefurbishedAppleProduct`
- Goal: _to confirm — brand new (initial commit today)_
- Stage: discovery (seeded — confirm)
- Guard: autonomous-ok
- Metric: _undefined_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: confirm goal and whether this is a monitor (alert on refurb stock?) or a site

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Initial commit: refurbished Apple ..." (same-day).


1	# nanoclaw
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/nanoclaw` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/nanoclaw
4	- Goal: the agent platform itself — powers this whole operating model
5	- Stage: build
6	- Guard: autonomous-ok
7	- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: decision questions James actually answers/week — proxy for brief usefulness)_
8	- Blocked on James: register a Reddit "script" app (for reddit-ingestion OAuth)
9	- Next action: commit uncommitted Slack channel files; then OAuth client_credentials flow for reddit-ingestion once app exists
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Migrated Mini → Studio (see nanoclaw memory: machine-migration-gotchas). Daily brief + portfolio board went live today.
13	- 2026-07-06 — Reddit ingestion merged 2026-06-13 but non-functional: unauthenticated `.json` API is 403-blocked at Reddit's edge; fails gracefully. Needs OAuth app + client_credentials flow.
14

# nanoclaw

- Repo: `~/projects/nanoclaw` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/nanoclaw
- Goal: the agent platform itself — powers this whole operating model
- Stage: build
- Guard: autonomous-ok
- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: decision questions James actually answers/week — proxy for brief usefulness)_
- Blocked on James: register a Reddit "script" app (for reddit-ingestion OAuth)
- Next action: commit uncommitted Slack channel files; then OAuth client_credentials flow for reddit-ingestion once app exists

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Migrated Mini → Studio (see nanoclaw memory: machine-migration-gotchas). Daily brief + portfolio board went live today.
- 2026-07-06 — Reddit ingestion merged 2026-06-13 but non-functional: unauthenticated `.json` API is 403-blocked at Reddit's edge; fails gracefully. Needs OAuth app + client_credentials flow.


Now I have all the context. This is the first daily brief (the board was just seeded today, 2026-07-06). Let me read the remaining project cards to be thorough.


1	# pool-monitor
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/pool-monitor` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/pool-monitor
4	- Goal: deployed pool filter monitor (steady state)
5	- Stage: maintain (seeded — confirm)
6	- Guard: autonomous-ok
7	- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: days between manual interventions)_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: none — steady state? confirm
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Add early alerting for uncalibrated..." (2026-06-17). Runs on always-on machine.
13

# pool-monitor

- Repo: `~/projects/pool-monitor` · https://github.com/jamesjlopez/pool-monitor
- Goal: deployed pool filter monitor (steady state)
- Stage: maintain (seeded — confirm)
- Guard: autonomous-ok
- Metric: _undefined — James to name (candidate: days between manual interventions)_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: none — steady state? confirm

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Add early alerting for uncalibrated..." (2026-06-17). Runs on always-on machine.


1	# MentorCore
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/MentorCore`
4	- Goal: _to confirm_
5	- Stage: test (seeded — confirm; live validation punch list exists)
6	- Guard: autonomous-ok
7	- Metric: _undefined_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: work the live validation punch list?
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Add live validation punch list" (2026-06-11).
13

# MentorCore

- Repo: `~/projects/MentorCore`
- Goal: _to confirm_
- Stage: test (seeded — confirm; live validation punch list exists)
- Guard: autonomous-ok
- Metric: _undefined_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: work the live validation punch list?

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Add live validation punch list" (2026-06-11).


1	# RoadSense
2
3	- Repo: `~/projects/RoadSense`
4	- Goal: _to confirm_
5	- Stage: test (seeded — confirm)
6	- Guard: autonomous-ok
7	- Metric: _undefined_
8	- Blocked on James: confirm this card
9	- Next action: confirm goal + deployment state (active Tailscale redirect serves it on :3001)
10
11	## Notes
12	- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Relax area smoke-test routing gate" (2026-06-06).
13

# RoadSense

- Repo: `~/projects/RoadSense`
- Goal: _to confirm_
- Stage: test (seeded — confirm)
- Guard: autonomous-ok
- Metric: _undefined_
- Blocked on James: confirm this card
- Next action: confirm goal + deployment state (active Tailscale redirect serves it on :3001)

## Notes
- 2026-07-06 — Seeded from git activity: "Relax area smoke-test routing gate" (2026-06-06).


This is the first daily brief. The board was seeded today, 2026-07-06, so there's no "prior brief" to compare against. Everything is seeded and pending confirmation from James.

Let me think about how to structure this brief:

**Moved:** Since there's no prior brief, and everything was seeded today, I should note new activity since seeding. Looking at repo-awareness:
- qip-qien: Last activity 2026-07-06 — "chore: log Fable model review findings into BACKLOG.md"
- congressional-trading: Last activity 2026-07-06 — "Keep shadow measurement active during pauses"
- FindRefurbishedAppleProduct: Last activity 2026-07-06 — "Initial commit: refurbished Apple product watcher"

The remaining repos show older activity dates ranging back to late June and mid-June. Since this is the inaugural brief, I'll note that all cards were seeded today rather than tracking movement from a prior state.

Looking at what's actually stalled, all 9 projects are technically blocked waiting on James to confirm their cards, but since everything just went live today, nothing has genuinely been stuck for 2+ days yet. That said, a few stand out as needing attention: TradingBot25 hasn't seen activity in 10 days, MentorCore in about 25 days, and RoadSense in roughly 30 days. AgenticLever's been quiet for a week, and nanoclaw is blocked on Reddit OAuth integration while sitting at 23 days of inactivity.

Now I'm thinking through which decisions matter most. Since all the cards are seeded but unconfirmed, I should focus on the highest-impact projects rather than diving into metric definitions yet. The most valuable ones to get clarity on are qip-qien with its active customer trial, congressional-trading which is actively running shadow measurement, and TradingBot25 which needs review but has gone dormant.

Looking at the actual decision format, I need to phrase these as concrete yes/no or multiple-choice questions that James can answer quickly. For this first brief, the board was just seeded today with three active repos, while a couple of older projects like RoadSense and MentorCore have stalled out completely.

The key decisions I'm tracking: confirming qip-qien's goal around Ramón's medical device Q&A work, understanding what would make congressional-trading graduate from shadow measurement, and clarifying whether FindRefurbishedAppleProduct is a personal tool or something with growth potential. But I need to be disciplined—only one metric question per brief, and confirming a seeded card's goal counts as a decision on its own.

For this brief with nine unconfirmed cards, I'll focus on three high-value confirmations: qip-qien first since it's review-required and actively running a trial, congressional-trading because it's active today, and one newer card like FindRefurbishedAppleProduct to keep things moving. I'm drafting this to stay phone-readable, under twenty lines, starting with what moved today across the three active repos.

Now I'm laying out the stalled projects — RoadSense and MentorCore haven't seen activity in weeks, and nanoclaw is blocked waiting on James to handle the Reddit OAuth setup. The key decisions I need to surface are confirming qip-qien's goal around the medical-device Q&A persona, understanding what metric or timeline graduates congressional-trading from shadow mode, and clarifying whether FindRefurbishedAppleProduct is just a personal Mac Studio alert or something broader.

I need to format this for Telegram since it's coming from a DM there, so I'll keep it mobile-friendly and use bold for emphasis where it helps readability.


<message to="telegram-mg-17796">
**Jul 6 — first brief, board seeded today**

**Moved** (3 repos committed today)
- qip-qien — "log Fable model review findings into BACKLOG.md"
- congressional-trading — "Keep shadow measurement active during pauses"
- FindRefurbishedAppleProduct — initial commit (brand new)

**Stalled** (cold git + unconfirmed)
- RoadSense — last commit Jun 6 (~30d), goal unknown
- MentorCore — last commit Jun 11 (~25d), live validation punch list untouched
- nanoclaw — blocked on you registering a Reddit OAuth app (low priority; flagging so it doesn't get lost)

**Decisions**
1. qip-qien goal: "AI-powered expert Q&A for Ramón's medical-device quality domain, with a customer trial currently running." Confirm or correct?
2. congressional-trading: shadow measurement is live. What result graduates it — a number of weeks clean, a precision threshold, or something else?
3. FindRefurbishedAppleProduct: personal alert (ping you when a refurb Mac Studio appears) or meant to be something more?
</message>