feat(skills): add dream skill (memory consolidation)

4-phase agentic workflow: Orient → Gather signal → Consolidate → Prune & index.
Produces a MEMORY.md index ≤200 lines and a dream summary of what changed.

Bump-Type: minor

dream/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+---
+name: dream
+description: >
+  Run a "dream" — a reflective memory consolidation pass over an agent's memory
+  directory. Use this skill whenever the user says "dream", "run a dream", "consolidate
+  my memory files", "clean up my MEMORY.md", or asks Claude to do a memory maintenance
+  pass, prune stale notes, or reorganize topic files. Also trigger when the user wants
+  to rebuild a memory index, merge duplicate facts, or convert relative dates in notes
+  to absolute ones. This is an agentic, multi-phase workflow — always use this skill
+  rather than improvising the steps.
+---
+
+# Dream — Memory Consolidation Skill
+
+You are performing a **dream**: a reflective, agentic pass over a memory directory.
+Your goal is to synthesize recent signal into durable, well-organized memory so that
+future sessions can orient quickly.
+
+---
+
+## Pre-flight
+
+Before starting, confirm:
+1. **Where is the memory directory?** Ask the user if not obvious from context.  
+   Common locations: `~/memory/`, `~/.agent/memory/`, `./memory/`, a path in an env var like `$MEMORY_DIR`.
+2. **Are there transcripts or daily logs to scan?** Ask if not obvious.
+3. **Any topics to skip or treat as sensitive?**
+
+Once confirmed, proceed through the four phases in order. Narrate each phase briefly as you go.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 1 — Orient
+
+**Goal**: Get a map of what exists before touching anything.
+
+```bash
+ls -la <memory_dir>/
+cat <memory_dir>/MEMORY.md
+```
+
+For each file listed (excluding MEMORY.md):
+- Read or skim it (first 40–60 lines is usually enough unless it's small).
+- Note: topic, approximate recency, any obvious staleness or duplication.
+
+Build a mental inventory:
+- Files present, rough line counts
+- Topics covered
+- Any files that look abandoned, mislabeled, or overlapping
+
+---
+
+## Phase 2 — Gather Recent Signal
+
+**Goal**: Find new facts, corrections, and drift since the last dream.
+
+Check in this order:
+
+1. **Daily logs** — read recent entries (last 7–14 days).  
+   Look for: new decisions, changed preferences, completed projects, new relationships/tools.
+
+2. **Drifted facts** — scan existing topic files for statements that may now be false.  
+   Examples: "currently evaluating X" (did they pick one?), "planning to do Y" (done or dropped?), relative dates like "last week" or "recently".
+
+3. **Transcripts** — only grep narrowly if there's a specific gap.  
+   Avoid bulk-reading transcripts; it's slow and noisy. Use targeted patterns:
+   ```bash
+   grep -r "decided\|switched to\|no longer\|now using\|moved to" <transcripts_dir>/ | tail -40
+   ```
+
+Collect a list of **updates to make**: new facts, corrections, removals.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 3 — Consolidate
+
+**Goal**: Apply the updates. Leave memory files cleaner and more accurate than you found them.
+
+For each topic file:
+
+- **Merge duplicates**: if the same fact appears in two files, keep it in the more specific one and remove from the general one.
+- **Convert relative dates**: replace "last week", "recently", "a few months ago" with an absolute date (use the current date as reference; estimate if necessary and note the uncertainty).
+- **Delete contradicted facts**: if a new fact supersedes an old one, remove the old one outright — don't leave both.
+- **Tighten language**: convert vague hedges ("probably uses", "might be") to definite statements where the evidence supports it, or remove if genuinely unknown.
+- **Add new facts** from Phase 2 to the appropriate topic file. Create a new topic file if no good home exists.
+
+After editing files, do a final pass:
+```bash
+grep -n "last week\|recently\|a few months\|soon\|currently planning" <memory_dir>/*.md
+```
+Clean up any remaining relative time references.
+
+---
+
+## Phase 4 — Prune and Index
+
+**Goal**: Rebuild MEMORY.md as a clean, navigable index under 200 lines.
+
+**MEMORY.md structure**:
+```markdown
+# Memory Index
+_Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD_
+
+## Overview
+One short paragraph: who this agent is, primary context, most important standing facts.
+
+## Topic Files
+| File | Contents | Last updated |
+|------|----------|-------------|
+| person.md | Identity, preferences, background | YYYY-MM-DD |
+| projects.md | Active and recent projects | YYYY-MM-DD |
+| tools.md | Stack, infra, dev environment | YYYY-MM-DD |
+| ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Quick Facts
+- Bullet list of the 10–15 most frequently-needed facts (role, location, key tools, etc.)
+
+## Recent Changes
+- Bullet list of what changed in this dream (so the next session knows what's fresh)
+```
+
+Rules:
+- Remove any pointers to files that no longer exist.
+- Add pointers for any new files created in Phase 3.
+- Keep Quick Facts ≤ 15 bullets — this is for speed, not completeness.
+- Recent Changes section replaces itself each dream (don't accumulate).
+- Total MEMORY.md length: **200 lines max**.
+
+---
+
+## Output
+
+After completing all four phases, return a **dream summary** to the user:
+
+```
+## Dream complete — YYYY-MM-DD
+
+### What changed
+- [file]: [what was updated]
+- MEMORY.md: rebuilt index, N topic files indexed
+
+### Facts added
+- ...
+
+### Facts removed / corrected
+- ...
+
+### Files created
+- ...
+
+### Files deleted or merged
+- ...
+
+### Still uncertain / needs follow-up
+- ...
+```
+
+Keep it concise — a few bullets per section, not exhaustive diffs. The goal is for the user to quickly confirm the dream went well and catch any mistakes.
+
+---
+
+## Tips and Edge Cases
+
+- **No MEMORY.md exists yet**: create one from scratch using the structure above. Treat all existing files as "first time indexed".
+- **Memory dir is empty**: create MEMORY.md and a starter `scratch.md` noting the date and that the memory system is new.
+- **Conflicting facts with no clear resolution**: note both in the file with a date stamp and flag in "Still uncertain" section of the summary.
+- **Large transcript dumps**: resist reading them in full. Grep is your friend. If you must read, read the last N lines only.
+- **Files with sensitive content**: if the user flagged topics to skip, skip them entirely — don't even open them.

experiment-spec/SKILL.md

@@ -1,192 +0,0 @@
----
-name: experiment-spec
-description: Write a rigorous experiment spec for a research phase before any code or training runs. Use instead of feature-spec for scientific/ML research projects. Enforces falsifiable hypothesis, quantitative acceptance criteria, baseline comparison, and null-result protocol.
----
-
-# Experiment Spec
-
-## Overview
-
-An experiment spec is the scientific contract for one research phase or experiment, written before any implementation or training begins. It is the research analogue of `feature-spec` — same discipline, different vocabulary.
-
-**Core principle:** If you cannot write a falsifiable hypothesis with a quantitative acceptance criterion, you do not understand the experiment well enough to run it.
-
-## When to Use
-
-- Starting a new research phase (Phase 0, Phase 1, etc.)
-- Running any experiment that will produce metrics used to make a go/no-go decision
-- Any time the question is "does X work?" rather than "build X"
-- Before touching training code, data, or hyperparameters for a new question
-
-**When NOT to use:**
-- Implementing a specific component whose behaviour is already defined by a phase spec (use `feature-spec` instead)
-- Exploratory data analysis with no hypothesis (use a notebook; note it as EDA)
-- Bug fixes or refactors
-
-## Iron Laws
-
-1. **The hypothesis must be falsifiable.** "JEPA is promising" is not a hypothesis. "JEPA embeddings will achieve silhouette > 0.35 on held-out data" is. If you cannot state conditions under which the hypothesis is false, it is not a hypothesis.
-2. **Acceptance criteria must be quantitative and pre-registered.** Write the number before you run the experiment. Moving the goalposts after seeing results is p-hacking.
-3. **A baseline is mandatory.** Every experiment must compare against at least one simpler baseline. "Better than nothing" is not a baseline.
-4. **A null-result protocol is mandatory.** State what you will conclude and do if the hypothesis is rejected. "Try harder" is not a protocol.
-5. **The training cutoff is sacred.** No post-cutoff data informs any decision in the spec or implementation.
-
-## Spec Template
-
-```markdown
-# Experiment Spec: [Phase N — Short Name]
-
-## Hypothesis
-
-> "[Falsifiable claim]: We believe [X] will produce [Y], measurable by [Z]."
-
-State conditions under which this hypothesis is FALSE.
-
-## Background
-
-Why this experiment? What does it build on? What prior result or decision motivates it?
-(2–4 sentences. Reference DECISIONS.md or brain wing entries where relevant.)
-
-## Design
-
-### Data
-- Source, date range, pairs/assets, features used
-- Train / validation / test split (respect training cutoff)
-
-### Model / method
-- Architecture, configuration, key hyperparameters
-- What is being varied vs. held fixed
-
-### Baseline
-- What simpler method is being compared against?
-- Why is this the right baseline?
-
-### Ablations (if any)
-- What variants will be run to isolate the effect being studied?
-
-## Acceptance Criteria
-
-- [ ] [Primary criterion — quantitative threshold on primary metric]
-- [ ] [Baseline comparison — e.g. "exceeds baseline by >X%"]
-- [ ] [Reproducibility — reruns within ±Y% of reported metric]
-- [ ] [Collapse/sanity check — e.g. "PC1/rolling-HV correlation < 0.85"]
-
-## Out of Scope
-
-What this experiment explicitly does NOT answer, even if related.
-Anything plausibly in scope that is deferred goes here.
-
-## Null Result Protocol
-
-If the primary acceptance criterion is NOT met:
-- What do we conclude?
-- What is the next step? (Investigate X, pivot to Y, terminate programme)
-- What gets written to the brain and results/summaries/?
-
-## Risks
-
-What could go wrong, and how would it be detected?
-At least one risk must be listed.
-```
-
-## Worked Example
-
-```markdown
-# Experiment Spec: Phase 0 — SSL Feasibility Gate
-
-## Hypothesis
-
-> We believe that a masked autoencoder (MAE) trained on FX hourly data will produce
-> latent embeddings that show structural separability by volatility regime without
-> explicit regime labels, measurable by silhouette score > 0.20 on held-out 2023 data.
-
-This hypothesis is FALSE if silhouette score ≤ 0.20 on the held-out evaluation.
-
-## Background
-
-Before investing in JEPA-specific machinery, we need to confirm that SSL-based
-representation learning can find regime structure in FX time-series at all. MAE is
-the simplest SSL baseline — if it cannot find structure, JEPA will not either.
-Added post Full Grill (2026-05-27). See DECISIONS.md: "Phase 0: SSL feasibility gate".
-
-## Design
-
-### Data
-- Source: DUKASCopy, EUR/USD hourly, 2008–2022 (train), 2023 (held-out test)
-- Features: log-return, rolling 20-period HV, VIX (daily interpolated to hourly)
-- Regime label (for evaluation only, not training): rolling 30-day HV percentile,
-  binary high/low threshold at 50th percentile
-
-### Model
-- Masked Autoencoder: 1D temporal masking (mask contiguous 24h window)
-- Encoder: 3-layer 1D CNN + positional encoding
-- Decoder: 2-layer MLP reconstructing masked segment
-- Context window: 120 hours (5 days)
-
-### Baseline
-- PCA on raw feature vectors (same window) — tests whether any dimensionality
-  reduction shows regime structure, not just SSL
-
-### Ablations
-- Masking horizon: K ∈ {8h, 24h, 72h} — does horizon affect embedding quality?
-
-## Acceptance Criteria
-
-- [ ] Silhouette score > 0.20 on held-out 2023 data (k-means, k=3, vs. HV regime label)
-- [ ] MAE silhouette exceeds PCA baseline silhouette
-- [ ] Rerun within ±10% of reported silhouette
-- [ ] PC1 / rolling-HV correlation < 0.95 (not purely encoding volatility level)
-
-## Out of Scope
-
-- JEPA implementation (Phase 1)
-- Multi-pair training (Phase 1+)
-- VaR or ES computation
-- Any use of post-2023 data
-
-## Null Result Protocol
-
-If silhouette ≤ 0.20:
-- Conclude: SSL cannot reliably find regime structure in EUR/USD hourly data with
-  these features at this resolution
-- Next step: investigate whether (a) hourly resolution is too noisy (try daily),
-  (b) 3 features are insufficient, or (c) regime label definition is too coarse
-- Record result in results/summaries/phase-0-null.md and brain wing jepa-fx/failures/
-
-## Risks
-
-- Encoder collapses to near-constant output: detect via reconstruction loss plateau
-  in first 10 epochs; mitigation: add batch norm, reduce learning rate
-- Regime label too coarse (binary HV): silhouette may be low even with good structure;
-  mitigation: also evaluate with 4-class label (HV quartiles)
-```
-
-## Common Failure Modes
-
-| Failure mode | What it looks like | Fix |
-|---|---|---|
-| Non-falsifiable hypothesis | "JEPA shows promise" | Rewrite with a number |
-| Post-hoc criteria | Threshold chosen after seeing results | Write the number first, commit the spec |
-| No baseline | Silhouette of 0.30 sounds good until PCA achieves 0.35 | Always include a dumber method |
-| Missing null protocol | "We'll figure it out if it fails" | Write it now — it forces clarity about what you're actually betting on |
-| Cutoff violation | Architecture choice informed by 2024 data patterns | Never open the test set during development |
-
-## Brain MCP Integration
-
-**At spec start:**
-- `brain_query wing=jepa-fx hall=decisions` — load current architectural decisions
-- `brain_query wing=jepa-fx hall=failures` — load known failure modes; address them in Risks section
-
-**After spec is approved:**
-- `brain_write` to `jepa-fx/hypotheses/` with the hypothesis and acceptance criteria
-
-**After experiment concludes:**
-- `brain_write` to `jepa-fx/failures/` with any new failure modes discovered
-- `session_log` with outcome
-
-## Cross-References
-
-- Use `feature-spec` for implementing a specific component within an already-specced phase
-- Use `grill-me` on the spec before running the experiment if the hypothesis feels shaky
-- Use `tdd` once the spec is approved — each acceptance criterion maps to a test
-- Use `session-retrospective` after the experiment concludes