29 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
29 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
## 2026-07-30 08:05 CEST
|
||
|
||
- User pointed at a local copy of the Cerebras article saved to `tmp/How Cerebras Built Its Enterprise Knowledge Base.html` after two direct `WebFetch` attempts returned HTTP 500.
|
||
- Converted it to plain text via `lynx -dump` into the session scratchpad and re-derived the concept list from the primary source, correcting details taken from secondary write-ups in the previous turn.
|
||
- Re-listed the ideas not covered by this KB but compatible with a local, file-based, no-install design; excluded the pgvector/HNSW embeddings table, Socket Mode ingestion, CocoIndex chunking, and the hosted cross-encoder reranker as out of scope.
|
||
|
||
## 2026-07-30 08:20 CEST
|
||
|
||
- User asked which of those ideas could actually be implemented in the current wiki.
|
||
- Read `.agents/skills/ckb-retrieve/SKILL.md` and `.agents/skills/ckb-ingest/SKILL.md` in full, plus the `source.yaml` schema in `ckb-index-external`, the graph edge-type vocabulary, and `.gitignore`'s per-user local-state precedent.
|
||
- Found three items from the previous turn's list were already partly covered by the skills (high-signal excerpts in ingest Step 4, `rg` over `raw/archive/` in retrieve Step 2, contradiction-surfacing in retrieve Step 6) and narrowed those claims accordingly.
|
||
- Concluded all ten are implementable without dedicated software: seven as prose-only edits to existing skills, three needing one new convention each (an expertise edge type, a `source.yaml` cadence field, a gitignored default-scope file). No implementation performed — assessment only.
|
||
|
||
## 2026-07-30 09:05 CEST
|
||
|
||
- User asked to implement the list, then chose all ten minus #5 (planning pass) and #10 (per-user default scope) — the two I'd advised against on value grounds. Eight items implemented.
|
||
- `ckb-retrieve`: added `raw/inbox/` to the exact-token sweep, a new Step 4 (RRF-style fusion at `k = 10`, claim-level dedupe, explicit 0–10 rerank), an expertise/ownership graph lookup in Step 3, caveat surfacing in Step 7, and an edge case for the single-signal case. Renumbered old Steps 4–6 to 5–7.
|
||
- `ckb-ingest`: replaced the loose "high-signal excerpt" guidance with a three-part acceptance test (rare term via `rg -c`, ~200 chars, corroborated later in the material) plus a rule to carry the parent heading; added `has_expertise_in`/`owns` edge recording, evidence-only.
|
||
- `ckb-index-external`: added optional `refresh_interval_days` to `source.yaml` (default 30), wired it into the generated pages' `freshness_window_days` and into Step 4's overdue reporting for both access levels.
|
||
- `ckb-lint`: validates `refresh_interval_days` and reports overdue connector indexes with how overdue, regardless of the user's access level; never re-indexes.
|
||
- Chose `k = 10` rather than the usual `k = 60` for fusion, since 60 is tuned for hundreds of candidates and flattens scores at local-wiki scale. Recorded the reasoning inline in the skill so it isn't mistaken for a transcription error.
|
||
- Bumped `kb_schema_version` 1.2 → 1.3 (additive edge types) and `VERSION` 1.2.1 → 1.3.0; logged both wiki changes in `wiki/log.md` per Rule B.
|
||
- Found `README.pl.md`/`MANUAL.pl.md` were behind by more than the version string: five README sections and two MANUAL sections from the 2026-07-29 session had never been translated. Caught both up rather than layering today's changes onto an incoherent base. EN/PL section parity now 28/28 and 15/15.
|
||
|
||
## 2026-07-30 09:30 CEST
|
||
|
||
- User asked the reverse comparison: what this KB has that the Cerebras system does not.
|
||
- Verified claimed absences by grepping the saved article text rather than asserting from memory — no hits for version/history/supersede/contradict/retention/archive/quality/confidence/entity/ontology/curate/stale/conflict; "graph" only as the HNSW citation, "decay" only as query-time age decay, "audit" once with no detail.
|
||
- Framed the answer around the root asymmetry: Cerebras Knowledge is a read path over systems of record it doesn't own, while this KB is itself a system of record that authors and curates content. Noted honestly that the article is a blog post rather than a spec, and that several of this KB's curation features are only tractable at small scale.
|