/idea-lineage

name: idea-lineage
version: 0.1.0
description: |
  Trace one idea's evolution through the brain: first mention, best
  articulation, related concepts, reversals, contradictions, abandoned
  branches, and the current live version. Use for single-idea conceptual
  lineage, not broad concept-map synthesis or structured entity metrics.
triggers:
  - "idea lineage"
  - "trace the lineage of this idea"
  - "how my thinking about"
  - "how has my thinking about"
  - "current version of this idea"
  - "what is my current version of"
  - "show reversals in my thinking about"
  - "where did this idea come from"
tools:
  - search
  - query
  - get_page
  - list_pages
  - takes_search
  - find_contradictions
  - find_trajectory
mutating: false

idea-lineage - Single-Idea Evolution Through the Brain

> **Convention:** see [conventions/quality.md](../conventions/quality.md) for > citation rules, quote fidelity, and source-backed claims. > > **Boundary:** see [docs/takes-vs-facts.md](../../docs/takes-vs-facts.md) for > the distinction between holder-attributed takes and the brain owner's hot > facts. Do not collapse those layers when summarizing lineage.

What this solves

Users often want to understand how one idea changed across time: when it first appeared, when it became sharp, what it displaced, what it contradicted, and what version is alive now. That is different from building a whole concept map and different from charting an entity's metric trajectory.

Use this skill when the user asks about one idea, topic, phrase, or concept page and wants its evolution through the brain.

Canonical examples:

• "Run idea lineage on founder-led sales."
• "How has my thinking about compounding trust changed?"
• "What is my current version of this idea?"
• "Where did this idea come from, and what did I abandon along the way?"

What this is not

• Not `concept-synthesis`: that skill deduplicates many concept stubs, tiers

them, writes concept pages, and builds a broad intellectual map.

• Not `find_trajectory`: that operation charts typed facts or event rows for

an entity, such as MRR, role, location, or status over time.

• Not a contradiction-probe runner: this skill may read cached contradiction

findings when available, but it does not launch expensive probes.

• Not a writing mode by default: do not write a lineage page unless the user

explicitly asks for a saved artifact after seeing the read-only answer.

Contract

This skill guarantees:

• A single-idea scope is preserved. Broad corpus or "map my concepts" prompts

route to `skills/concept-synthesis/SKILL.md` instead.

• Every lineage claim cites existing brain evidence: page slug, source id when

present, date, and short quote or snippet.

• Missing evidence is labeled as a gap, not patched with plausible narrative.
• Contradictions, reversals, and abandoned branches are separated from normal

temporal evolution.

• The default mode is read-only and does not mutate brain pages.

Phases

Phase 1: Resolve the idea target

1. Restate the idea in one sentence. 2. Search for exact phrase variants with `search`. 3. Run one semantic `query` for the natural-language version. 4. Check `list_pages` for concept pages when the idea has an obvious concept slug or title. 5. If results point to an entity/metric/status trajectory rather than a concept, hand off to `find_trajectory` or the normal query/think trajectory path.

If multiple distinct ideas share the same phrase, ask the user to choose the intended one before synthesizing.

Phase 2: Gather evidence

Collect enough evidence to support or reject each output bucket:

• Search chunks with dates and source slugs.
• Full pages via `get_page` for the top relevant concept, note, transcript,

meeting, article, or project pages.

• Related concept pages through backlinks, `related` frontmatter, or repeated

co-occurrence in search results.

• Takes via `takes_search` when the idea appears as a belief, bet, hunch, or

attributed claim.

• Cached contradiction findings via `find_contradictions` when the user asks

about inconsistency or the search results show obvious conflict.

• `find_trajectory` only when the evidence is entity/attribute-shaped, such as

a role/status/metric evolution that is relevant to the idea's story.

Prefer fewer high-quality sources over a long unsorted pile. Read full pages when snippets imply a lineage milestone.

Phase 3: Classify lineage moments

Classify evidence into these buckets:

1. **First mention** - earliest dated evidence where the idea appears. 2. **Best articulation** - the clearest or most complete expression, not necessarily the newest. 3. **Current live version** - the most recent high-authority version that still appears active. 4. **Reversals** - places where the user's stance changed direction. 5. **Contradictions** - claims that cannot both be true at the same time or under the same assumptions. Distinguish these from legitimate temporal supersession. 6. **Abandoned branches** - promising variants that appear and then disappear, lose support, or are explicitly rejected. 7. **Related concepts** - nearby ideas that shaped or inherited part of the original idea.

When a bucket has no evidence, write "No clear evidence found" with a brief note about what was checked.

Phase 4: Synthesize the lineage

Write the answer in the output format below. Keep the synthesis proportional to the evidence. Do not overfit a smooth evolution if the evidence is sparse, messy, or contradictory.

Phase 5: Suggest optional next action

If useful, offer one concrete follow-up:

• Save the lineage as a brain page.
• Run broad `concept-synthesis` if the user actually wants the whole concept

map refreshed.

• Run or inspect trajectory data if the idea turned out to depend on structured

entity facts.

• Run a contradiction probe only when stale cached findings are insufficient

and the user explicitly wants that heavier pass.