Maintain a single-topic living document in the repository that can be resumed across sessions.
Parse the request
- Use the Markdown path relative to the current Git repository provided by the user; stop if the path goes outside the repository.
- When no path is provided on the first save, based on the topic, under
docs/checkpoints/select a Markdown path that does not yet exist; when other requests lack a path, ask the user. - Determine from natural language whether the user wants to save or restore. If both meanings are valid, ask first.
Save the discussion
- If the target file exists, read it in full first; if it does not exist, determine a single topic based on the current request and discussion.
- Extract only the current goals, decisions, forks, non-goals, and carriers relevant to that topic.
- Only complete decision propositions explicitly accepted by the user may enter "Confirmed Decisions". When the user confirms a plan, only the plan choice is confirmed; the evidential status of its factual premises is not changed. When a complete statement contains both a decision and unverified agent judgment, record them separately, and the latter is still marked as "AI Inference". When confirmation uses an abbreviation, interpret the abbreviation according to the currently applicable instructions and save the complete decision proposition.
- Mark unconfirmed user plans as "Candidates" and agent-derived content as "AI Inference"; keep undecided forks in "Open Questions".
- Write directly into the target file according to the above classifications. When a new decision explicitly invalidates an old decision, directly modify or delete the old content.
- After writing, read the target file in full again and perform an internal semantic consistency check: no opposing current conclusions may remain; adjudicated matters must not remain in "Open Questions"; old content replaced by a new decision must be cleaned up; the same currently effective decision must not exist in multiple complete bodies. This check does not verify external facts or evidential strength of the checkpoint. After the check is complete, show the target path, the check result, the actual additions, modifications, deletions, and structural reorganizations, as well as unresolved items; if there are no actual changes, state this explicitly.
- Decisions that have entered formal carriers such as spec, plan, or issue still retain their complete content, with corresponding references attached.
- Do not automatically execute
git add, commit, or push.
Use the following structure; omit empty sections:
# <讨论主题>
## 当前目标
## 已确认决策
## 候选与 AI 推断
## 已否决方案
## 待讨论问题
## 非目标
## 相关载体
Within the same checkpoint, "Confirmed Decisions" is the sole location for the complete body of currently effective decisions; "Current Goals" retains only a summary, and other sections record only the boundaries or impacts caused by decisions, without repeating the complete conditions, reasons, and conclusions.
Mark candidates and AI inferences item by item with their type. Reasons retain only content that has already appeared in the discussion. When the original wording, scope of negation, or combination of conditions affects meaning, retain the user's original words.
The discussion can still be saved when it has not been concluded. Conflicting statements that have not yet been adjudicated enter "Open Questions" at the same time. Files that have been manually modified are understood semantically.
Restore the discussion
- If the target file does not exist, report the path and stop.
- Read the target file in full and restore semantically based only on its content.
- Show a brief restoration summary. Ask the question that first blocks subsequent judgments according to dependency relationships; when questions are mutually independent, ask the one that appears earliest in the document.
- If there are no open questions, state that there are currently no unresolved items and stop.
- Restoration itself is read-only; subsequent changes still require the user to explicitly save again.
After recovery, if a checkpoint is actually found to conflict with other carriers in normal discussion, display both sides' content and wait for the user to adjudicate; only pause the affected discussion branch.