Idea Ingest

Idea Ingest Skill

Filing rule: Read skills/_brain-filing-rules.md before creating any new page.

Contract

This skill guarantees:

• Every ingested item has a brain page with genuine analysis (not just a summary)
• The author gets a people page (MANDATORY for anyone whose thinking is worth ingesting)
• Cross-links created bidirectionally (source ↔ author, source ↔ mentioned entities)
• Raw source preserved for provenance via gbrain files upload-raw
• Every fact has an inline [Source: ...] citation
• Filing follows primary subject rules (not format-based)

Returns (when invoked by another skill or sub-agent):

• page_path: brain page path of the ingested item (e.g., concepts/flywheel-effects)
• author_path: brain page path of the author (e.g., people/alice-example)
• cross_links: list of all cross-links created
• status: ingested | updated | fetch_failed

Convention: See skills/conventions/quality.md for Iron Law back-linking.

Every mention of a person or company with a brain page MUST create a back-link. Format: - **YYYY-MM-DD** | Referenced in [page title](path) — brief context

Phases

1. Fetch the content. Use appropriate tools for the content type (web fetch for articles, API for tweets, PDF reader for documents).

2. Upload raw source. Save the fetched content for provenance: gbrain files upload-raw <file> --page <slug>

3. Identify the author — MANDATORY people page. Anyone whose thinking is worth ingesting is worth tracking.

   • Search brain for existing author page
   • If no page → CREATE ONE with compiled truth + timeline format
   • If page exists → update timeline with this new publication
   • Cross-link both directions

4. Save to brain. File by PRIMARY SUBJECT (read skills/_brain-filing-rules.md):

   • About a person → people/
   • About a company → companies/
   • A reusable framework → concepts/
   • Raw data dump → sources/

5. Analyze for the user. Reply with analysis that connects the content to what the brain knows. Think about:

   • Active projects — is this relevant?
   • Contradictions — does this challenge existing brain knowledge?
   • Connections — does this involve known people/companies?
   • Don't just summarize. Tell the user things they wouldn't have noticed.

6. Sync. gbrain sync to update the index.

Output Format

markdownCopy code
# {Title} — {Author}

**Source:** {URL}
**Author:** {Author}, {role}
**Published:** {date}
**Ingested:** {date}

## Context
{Why this matters now, connected to brain knowledge}

## Summary
{3-5 bullet core arguments}

## Key Data / Claims
{Specific facts, numbers, quotes}

## Analysis
{How this connects to existing brain knowledge. What's new. What contradicts.}

Edge Cases

• Fetch fails (paywall, 404, timeout): Save a stub page with URL + metadata + reason for failure. Tell the user content couldn't be fetched and ask if they can paste it.
• Duplicate URL: Before ingesting, search brain for the URL. If found, update the existing page rather than creating a new one. Tell the user it was already ingested.
• No identifiable author: Use sources/ filing. Skip the people page but note the gap.
• Tweet thread vs single tweet: Fetch the entire thread. Treat the thread as one unit.
• Video/podcast link: Note that only metadata can be ingested unless a transcript is available. Ask the user for a transcript.
• Raw upload: Use the file_upload tool (not CLI gbrain files upload-raw) when operating as an agent.

Anti-Patterns

• Just summarizing without connecting to brain knowledge
• Filing everything in sources/ (sources is for raw data dumps only)
• Skipping the author people page
• Not cross-linking to mentioned entities
• Ingesting without checking brain first for existing coverage
• Overwriting an existing brain page instead of merging new content into it
• Hallucinating connections to brain knowledge — only cite connections you verified via search/query
• Creating generic slugs like concepts/strategy — be specific: concepts/flywheel-effects
• Assuming the fetch succeeded without verifying content was actually retrieved