obsidian-fix-pattern-memory
Skill3 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Search or maintain canonical Obsidian fix-patterns and exact-target evidence, or report validation debt and Campaigns. Use for 读取记忆库, 根据记忆, 记一下, behavior-changing fixes, regression lookup, evidence/status updates, 待真机, 验证债务, 待回归, Campaign, or 发布前验收清单. Routine recording uses one direct path; reporting and maintenance are explicit modes.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- asr3601-cross-branch-portingSkill
- asr3601-lvgl-firmware-triageSkill
- asr3601-project-onboardSkill
- asr3601-protocol-branch-matrixSkill
- asr3602-local-build-flashSkill
- asr360x-bug-delivery-orchestratorSkill
- catstudio-log-extractorSkill
- skill-usage-trackerSkill
- zentao-bug-resolverSkill
- zentao-bug-triageSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 14
Use scripts/fix_memory.py as the only canonical-note writer.
- Distinctive: line 19
After a behavior-changing fix, consume the current Bug receipt:
- Very specific: line 21
If the receipt already records this fix and verification in an exact canonical target, reuse it without another write.
- Very specific: line 24
If memory_target is empty, search fix-patterns/ once with one to three root-cause, symbol, or symptom terms.
- Distinctive: line 26
Update one high-confidence root-cause match.
- Distinctive: line 27
Keep ambiguous roots separate instead of merging by project/customer name.
- Very specific: line 28
Stop after the write. Do not run full validate, migration, domain audit, or cross-project candidates during routine recording.
- Distinctive: line 52
Update only the exact target row:
- Very specific: line 71
Use project/branch/version/domain filters and --campaign for the requested scope.
- Very specific: line 85
After a write, report the note path, fix_id, exact target state, evidence level, and whether any other targets remain candidates.
- Distinctive: line 88
Read fix record schema only when interpreting identity/state transitions.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Obsidian Fix-Pattern Memory
Canonical notes live under:
%USERPROFILE%\Documents\Obsidian\CodexVault\Codex\fix-patternsUse scripts/fix_memory.py as the only canonical-note writer. Never use Basic Memory MCP or
invent a second state schema.
Fast Record Path
After a behavior-changing fix, consume the current Bug receipt:
- If the receipt already records this fix and verification in an exact canonical
target, reuse it without another write. For new evidence, call
upsert --noteor the matchingeventonce on that note. Do not search again. - If
memory_targetis empty, searchfix-patterns/once with one to three root-cause, symbol, or symptom terms. - Update one high-confidence root-cause match. If none exists, create one note. Keep ambiguous roots separate instead of merging by project/customer name.
- Stop after the write. Do not run full
validate, migration, domain audit, or cross-project candidates during routine recording.
python -X utf8 "$env:USERPROFILE\.codex\skills\obsidian-fix-pattern-memory\scripts\fix_memory.py" upsert --note <canonical.md> --repo . --bug <id> --implementation applied --verification <level> --writeFor a new root cause, include title, slug, keywords, scope, symptoms, root cause,
key files/functions, fix, verification method, and explicit
--domain asr|esp32|none. The script requires the knowledge fields before it
writes a new note.
Lookup Path
For explicit memory lookup, regression, similar issue, or cross-branch work,
search only fix-patterns/ with one to three precise terms and read at most three
genuine matches. A high-confidence match needs compatible symptoms/root cause or
code symbols; project, branch, device, or customer text alone is insufficient.
读取记忆 or 根据记忆 authorizes lookup only. A later behavior fix follows the
Fast Record Path.
Evidence Event Path
Update only the exact target row:
python -X utf8 "$env:USERPROFILE\.codex\skills\obsidian-fix-pattern-memory\scripts\fix_memory.py" event --note <canonical.md> --repo . --bug <id> --event <event> --evidence "<evidence>" --writeBuild/static evidence never becomes device/platform/QA verification. resolved
means development-resolved and QA-pending; only closed or equivalent explicit
QA evidence supports qa_verified. Reactivation downgrades only the exact target
with the materially same symptom.
Validation Debt Reports
For pending device/platform/QA checks or Campaigns, run the read-only report:
python -X utf8 "$env:USERPROFILE\.codex\skills\obsidian-fix-pattern-memory\scripts\validation_debt_report.py" --fix-patterns "$env:USERPROFILE\Documents\Obsidian\CodexVault\Codex\fix-patterns" [filters]Use project/branch/version/domain filters and --campaign for the requested
scope. Read validation debt for grouping,
readiness meanings, or open-loop reconciliation. Write a draft/delta only to an
explicitly requested standalone path; do not rewrite canonical open-loops.
Reporting does not trigger ordinary fix recording or upgrade evidence.
Write Boundary
Record completed behavior-changing code, configuration, or resource fixes. Do not auto-record explanation-only work, comments/formatting, reverted experiments, temporary diagnostics, unrelated environment cleanup, or anything the user says not to record. Never save credentials, full chats, large logs, or private account data.
After a write, report the note path, fix_id, exact target state, evidence level,
and whether any other targets remain candidates.
Read fix record schema only when interpreting identity/state transitions. Read maintenance operations only for migration, validation, domain correction, or cross-project candidate audits.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

