Follow-up to #81 (adds the mechanism to promote/reject a pending note —
this issue is about the missing trigger to actually look). Even with brain_reject shipped, nothing prompts a review; the queue only gets checked
if someone happens to call brain_pending manually. That's exactly how the
4 real items sitting since 2026-04-23 went unnoticed for 3 months — the tool
existed the whole time, nobody had a reason to call it.
Same shape as brain-gardener#121 (surface resolved review issues via comment,
don't auto-close — the human still decides, but the system should be the one
that remembers to ask). Same principle applies one stage earlier here: the
system should prompt "these are aging," not require someone to remember the
queue exists.
Proposal
Options (pick one, don't over-build):
ntfy digest, threshold-gated. A periodic (daily/weekly) check: any brain/raw/*.md older than N days (e.g. 14) fires an ntfy notification
listing filenames + age, same pattern as brain-audit's existing severity-gated
digest (fires only when something crosses the threshold, not every run —
avoids confirmation-fatigue).
Surface via brain_context. If a session's brain_context call already
returns "prior decisions/corrections" for a project, cheaply also note "N
pending brain/raw/ items, oldest Xd" so it surfaces in-session without a new
scheduled job.
Both — ntfy for the out-of-band nudge, brain_context for the in-session one.
Whichever: never auto-reject on age. Aging is a trigger to ask a human, not
a verdict — an old note might still be exactly right to promote once someone
looks. Mirrors the exact reasoning issue-status-derived-surfaced-not-closed
already settled for the tracker (2026-06-30, referenced in brain-gardener#121).
Acceptance
An aging pending note (>threshold days) is surfaced to Mathias without him
having to think to call brain_pending. No note is ever auto-rejected or
auto-promoted by this mechanism.
Related
#81 (parent — the reject capability this surfacing feeds into)
brain-gardener#121 (same surfaced-not-decided pattern, one layer over)
## Context
Follow-up to #81 (adds the *mechanism* to promote/reject a pending note —
this issue is about the missing *trigger* to actually look). Even with
`brain_reject` shipped, nothing prompts a review; the queue only gets checked
if someone happens to call `brain_pending` manually. That's exactly how the
4 real items sitting since 2026-04-23 went unnoticed for 3 months — the tool
existed the whole time, nobody had a reason to call it.
Same shape as brain-gardener#121 (surface resolved review issues via comment,
don't auto-close — the human still decides, but the *system* should be the one
that remembers to ask). Same principle applies one stage earlier here: the
system should prompt "these are aging," not require someone to remember the
queue exists.
## Proposal
Options (pick one, don't over-build):
1. **ntfy digest, threshold-gated.** A periodic (daily/weekly) check: any
`brain/raw/*.md` older than N days (e.g. 14) fires an ntfy notification
listing filenames + age, same pattern as brain-audit's existing severity-gated
digest (fires only when something crosses the threshold, not every run —
avoids confirmation-fatigue).
2. **Surface via `brain_context`.** If a session's `brain_context` call already
returns "prior decisions/corrections" for a project, cheaply also note "N
pending brain/raw/ items, oldest Xd" so it surfaces in-session without a new
scheduled job.
3. **Both** — ntfy for the out-of-band nudge, `brain_context` for the in-session one.
Whichever: never auto-reject on age. Aging is a trigger to *ask a human*, not
a verdict — an old note might still be exactly right to promote once someone
looks. Mirrors the exact reasoning `issue-status-derived-surfaced-not-closed`
already settled for the tracker (2026-06-30, referenced in brain-gardener#121).
## Acceptance
An aging pending note (>threshold days) is surfaced to Mathias without him
having to think to call `brain_pending`. No note is ever auto-rejected or
auto-promoted by this mechanism.
## Related
- #81 (parent — the reject capability this surfacing feeds into)
- brain-gardener#121 (same surfaced-not-decided pattern, one layer over)
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.
Context
Follow-up to #81 (adds the mechanism to promote/reject a pending note —
this issue is about the missing trigger to actually look). Even with
brain_rejectshipped, nothing prompts a review; the queue only gets checkedif someone happens to call
brain_pendingmanually. That's exactly how the4 real items sitting since 2026-04-23 went unnoticed for 3 months — the tool
existed the whole time, nobody had a reason to call it.
Same shape as brain-gardener#121 (surface resolved review issues via comment,
don't auto-close — the human still decides, but the system should be the one
that remembers to ask). Same principle applies one stage earlier here: the
system should prompt "these are aging," not require someone to remember the
queue exists.
Proposal
Options (pick one, don't over-build):
brain/raw/*.mdolder than N days (e.g. 14) fires an ntfy notificationlisting filenames + age, same pattern as brain-audit's existing severity-gated
digest (fires only when something crosses the threshold, not every run —
avoids confirmation-fatigue).
brain_context. If a session'sbrain_contextcall alreadyreturns "prior decisions/corrections" for a project, cheaply also note "N
pending brain/raw/ items, oldest Xd" so it surfaces in-session without a new
scheduled job.
brain_contextfor the in-session one.Whichever: never auto-reject on age. Aging is a trigger to ask a human, not
a verdict — an old note might still be exactly right to promote once someone
looks. Mirrors the exact reasoning
issue-status-derived-surfaced-not-closedalready settled for the tracker (2026-06-30, referenced in brain-gardener#121).
Acceptance
An aging pending note (>threshold days) is surfaced to Mathias without him
having to think to call
brain_pending. No note is ever auto-rejected orauto-promoted by this mechanism.
Related