Charter: ADR-0012 (consolidation heuristic) · Blocked on: ADR-0009 design being decided first
Intent
The two big consolidations ADR-0012 names for the brain surface:
remember — collapse brain_write / brain_ingest / brain_ingest_raw (three doors for one intent: "put this knowledge in"). Per the consolidation heuristic, the caller has no legitimate stake in which extraction mechanism runs — that's the server's call — so this is a clean collapse to one intent-named verb, with extraction strategy as an optional server-defaulted hint.
recall — collapse brain_query / brain_answer / brain_graph (three retrieval mechanisms for one intent: "find what's relevant"). Here the caller sometimes has a legitimate stake (occasionally you really do want graph traversal), so per the heuristic this is one verb + an optional strategy hint defaulting to server choice — NOT a hard wall hiding the mechanisms. brain_get stays separate (fetch-exact-handle is a distinct intent, not a mechanism of recall).
Why this is blocked, not ready
This is not immediately actionable. ADR-0012 explicitly hands the brain-specific verb-set design to ADR-0009 (consumer-split), which is still a STUB with its Decision section as TODO. The agent-facing vs human-facing split has to be decided first — e.g. does remember mean the same thing for an autonomous agent as for a human curating raw→wiki? Is recall's default strategy consumer-dependent? Those are 0009's questions. Building remember/recall before 0009 is decided would hard-code answers to questions that are supposed to be deliberated.
So: this issue tracks the consolidation intent and keeps ADR-0012's "tracked separately" claim honest, but its first real step is doing ADR-0009's design, under the charter.
Acceptance (gated)
ADR-0009 Decision section filled (consumer-split + verb set decided, under ADR-0012)
remember verb designed (write/ingest/ingest_raw → one verb + optional extraction hint)
recall verb designed (query/answer/graph → one verb + optional strategy hint, server-default)
brain_get confirmed to remain separate (distinct intent)
Versioned deprecation plan for the old verbs (add-new / deprecate / migrate / remove) — do not hard-break callers
SKILLs / agents / capture BrainStore caller-migration accounted for
Related
ADR-0009 (the blocker — brain consumer-split design must be decided first)
ADR-0012 (the charter + consolidation heuristic) · #43/#44 (evidence) · sibling cleanups #78 (brain_index), #79 (legacy params)
**Charter:** ADR-0012 (consolidation heuristic) · **Blocked on:** ADR-0009 design being decided first
## Intent
The two big consolidations ADR-0012 names for the brain surface:
- **`remember`** — collapse `brain_write` / `brain_ingest` / `brain_ingest_raw` (three doors for one intent: "put this knowledge in"). Per the consolidation heuristic, the caller has no legitimate stake in *which extraction mechanism* runs — that's the server's call — so this is a clean collapse to one intent-named verb, with extraction strategy as an optional server-defaulted hint.
- **`recall`** — collapse `brain_query` / `brain_answer` / `brain_graph` (three retrieval mechanisms for one intent: "find what's relevant"). Here the caller *sometimes* has a legitimate stake (occasionally you really do want graph traversal), so per the heuristic this is one verb + an optional `strategy` hint defaulting to server choice — NOT a hard wall hiding the mechanisms. `brain_get` stays separate (fetch-exact-handle is a distinct intent, not a mechanism of recall).
## Why this is blocked, not ready
This is **not** immediately actionable. ADR-0012 explicitly hands the brain-specific verb-set design to **ADR-0009** (consumer-split), which is still a STUB with its Decision section as TODO. The agent-facing vs human-facing split has to be decided first — e.g. does `remember` mean the same thing for an autonomous agent as for a human curating raw→wiki? Is `recall`'s default strategy consumer-dependent? Those are 0009's questions. Building `remember`/`recall` before 0009 is decided would hard-code answers to questions that are supposed to be deliberated.
So: this issue tracks the consolidation intent and keeps ADR-0012's "tracked separately" claim honest, but its first real step is **doing ADR-0009's design**, under the charter.
## Acceptance (gated)
- [ ] ADR-0009 Decision section filled (consumer-split + verb set decided, under ADR-0012)
- [ ] `remember` verb designed (write/ingest/ingest_raw → one verb + optional extraction hint)
- [ ] `recall` verb designed (query/answer/graph → one verb + optional strategy hint, server-default)
- [ ] `brain_get` confirmed to remain separate (distinct intent)
- [ ] Versioned deprecation plan for the old verbs (add-new / deprecate / migrate / remove) — do not hard-break callers
- [ ] SKILLs / agents / capture BrainStore caller-migration accounted for
## Related
- **ADR-0009** (the blocker — brain consumer-split design must be decided first)
- ADR-0012 (the charter + consolidation heuristic) · #43/#44 (evidence) · sibling cleanups #78 (brain_index), #79 (legacy params)
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
Charter: ADR-0012 (consolidation heuristic) · Blocked on: ADR-0009 design being decided first
Intent
The two big consolidations ADR-0012 names for the brain surface:
remember— collapsebrain_write/brain_ingest/brain_ingest_raw(three doors for one intent: "put this knowledge in"). Per the consolidation heuristic, the caller has no legitimate stake in which extraction mechanism runs — that's the server's call — so this is a clean collapse to one intent-named verb, with extraction strategy as an optional server-defaulted hint.recall— collapsebrain_query/brain_answer/brain_graph(three retrieval mechanisms for one intent: "find what's relevant"). Here the caller sometimes has a legitimate stake (occasionally you really do want graph traversal), so per the heuristic this is one verb + an optionalstrategyhint defaulting to server choice — NOT a hard wall hiding the mechanisms.brain_getstays separate (fetch-exact-handle is a distinct intent, not a mechanism of recall).Why this is blocked, not ready
This is not immediately actionable. ADR-0012 explicitly hands the brain-specific verb-set design to ADR-0009 (consumer-split), which is still a STUB with its Decision section as TODO. The agent-facing vs human-facing split has to be decided first — e.g. does
remembermean the same thing for an autonomous agent as for a human curating raw→wiki? Isrecall's default strategy consumer-dependent? Those are 0009's questions. Buildingremember/recallbefore 0009 is decided would hard-code answers to questions that are supposed to be deliberated.So: this issue tracks the consolidation intent and keeps ADR-0012's "tracked separately" claim honest, but its first real step is doing ADR-0009's design, under the charter.
Acceptance (gated)
rememberverb designed (write/ingest/ingest_raw → one verb + optional extraction hint)recallverb designed (query/answer/graph → one verb + optional strategy hint, server-default)brain_getconfirmed to remain separate (distinct intent)Related