Credo: Journal

Outcome: the idea, prediction, hindsight, or monthly review is appended to the user's journal with today's date, and the user returns to what they were doing. Over months the journal shows which judgments held. Carlini's best-paper essay says taste is built by attending to what worked and what did not; this file is where that attention lands.

The habit extends Carlini's ideas.txt: append-only, problems rather than solutions, read a few times a year so each idea is judged twice with time between, annotated in hindsight. Predictions are added so hindsight has something to compare against.

Scope

This skill runs only when the user invokes it by name: disable-model-invocation in Claude Code and allow_implicit_invocation: false in Codex keep it from loading on everyday phrases or project policies. Once invoked, record research ideas, predictions made at decisions about paper-bound work, and hindsight. The journal tracks the long-horizon portfolio the monthly review reads; routine task progress, product work, and individual runs stay in their existing records.

Locate the journal

Use the path the user names, else a journal path set in a section of your project's instruction file, else the CREDO_JOURNAL environment variable, else ~/research/journal.md. The journal is user data: never reformat, reorder, deduplicate, or edit past entries. Corrections are new dated entries that name the earlier date.

Append with the script

From the directory containing this SKILL.md:

python3 scripts/journal.py append --kind idea --title "One line naming the problem" \
  --field "why it might matter=..." --field "what makes it possible now=..." --field "where it came from=..."
python3 scripts/journal.py append --kind prediction --title "Project or decision" \
  --field "decision=continue" --field "why I expect it to work=..." --field "what would kill it=..." \
  --field "what a skeptical reviewer will ask=..." --field "months ahead, my guess=..."
python3 scripts/journal.py append --kind hindsight --title "Project (prediction 2026-06-02)" \
  --field "what happened=..." --field "judged right, judged wrong=..." --field "what I would ask earlier=..."
python3 scripts/journal.py read --older-than 90

Add --path <file> when the journal is not at the default location; without it the script uses the CREDO_JOURNAL environment variable when set, else ~/research/journal.md. The script opens the file in append mode only, stamps today's date, and refuses unknown kinds; it needs Python 3.10 or newer and no packages. If Python is unavailable, append by hand in the same shape (## YYYY-MM-DD kind: title followed by - field: value lines) and say so.

Rules that change behavior

• Ideas record problems, not solutions. If the user brings a solution, ask what problem it would settle and record that first. Only ideas the user currently believes are good.
• For a prediction entry, preserve the user's stated expectation and what would change it. Ask only if a missing prediction matters to the entry being recorded. Mark an agent-proposed prediction as a proposal; do not convert it into the user's belief.
• For a hindsight entry, compare the result with the relevant prediction and preserve the user's judgment separately from an agent interpretation. Do not force a journal interruption during ordinary result analysis.
• Do not evaluate an idea at capture time. Append and return the user to their task.
• Do not surface entries unprompted during ordinary work. The journal is read only when choosing what to do next and during the monthly review.

Monthly review

Inputs: the user's list of long-horizon efforts in flight or parked, and the journal read with --older-than 90 first; predictions with no matching hindsight are raised first. Ask in two rounds: questions 1, 2, and 4 together, then 3 for the efforts that survived, with 5. Ask one question per turn only when the user asks for that.

1. Which one or two of these could be great? Carlini's essay expects one or two a year; the rest are practice.
2. For each effort: is the core still working, does the best-case conclusion still matter, has anything more important appeared? Kill or park what fails; name what is salvaged.
3. For each survivor: how many months ahead of the next person is it now, against the last guess in the journal? Has the area's importance moved?
4. Anything rejected or null since last time: premise or argument? What in the distribution would you change, and what is just the sample?
5. Is the main effort where the user's skill and the area's current importance meet?

Stop after these five, or earlier when the user has said what changes next month. Append one review entry in the user's words: the great candidates, what was killed or parked and why, the months-ahead guesses, and the one change for next month. Then one line naming the first action for the coming week.

Output

Confirm the path and the appended entry heading, or the prediction read back. If the file cannot be written, give the entry text for the user to paste.