You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
- Category name in Chinese or English. If English, use lowercase with underscores, max 3 words.
22
+
merge_op: immutable
23
+
24
+
- name: name
25
+
type: string
26
+
description: |
27
+
- Entity name in Chinese or English. If English, use lowercase with underscores, max 3 words.
28
+
merge_op: immutable
29
+
30
+
- name: content
31
+
type: string
32
+
description: |
33
+
- Detailed Zettelkasten card content in markdown format.
34
+
- Keep the card self-contained, factual, neutral, and useful after retrieval.
35
+
- For people or evaluative content, do not output only an "Issue" field. Pair any evaluation, risk, weakness, or recommendation with "Evidence".
36
+
- Prefer objective facts, metrics, dates, user-provided context, or quoted requirements over labels.
37
+
- If evidence is missing or weak, omit the judgment or write "Insufficient information, needs verification"; do not overgeneralize.
38
+
- Avoid hostile or blaming wording such as "dragging down", "very poor", "not good", or "incapable"; prefer neutral wording such as "output below target/peer level" or "needs further observation".
39
+
40
+
Preferred shape for evaluative person entities:
41
+
# <Entity Name>
42
+
- Evaluation conclusion: <neutral conclusion, if supported by evidence>
43
+
- Evidence:
44
+
- <objective fact, metric, date/context, or quoted requirement>
45
+
- Concerns/Risks: <neutral risk statement, optional; include only if supported>
46
+
47
+
Bad example:
48
+
# Kevin D. Wallace
49
+
- Evaluation level: Needs improvement
50
+
- Issue: Since Q4, work efficiency has declined noticeably; other colleagues in the same group have stable output, while his state has fluctuated significantly, dragging the team down.
51
+
52
+
Good example:
53
+
# Kevin D. Wallace
54
+
- Evaluation conclusion: Current performance needs further attention
55
+
- Evidence:
56
+
- User mentioned that his work efficiency has declined noticeably since Q4
57
+
- User mentioned that other colleagues in the same group have stable output, while his state has fluctuated significantly
58
+
- Concerns/Risks: Team output pace may be affected; needs to be reviewed with the latest performance data
User profile memory - captures relatively stable information about "who the user is" and how the user works.
5
+
Extract stable personal/work attributes that help future answers understand the user's role, work scope, communication style, and recurring work habits.
6
+
Include: profession, stable work scope, experience level, technical/business background, communication style, work habits, recurring delivery preferences, etc.
7
+
8
+
Do NOT include one-off project events, temporary conversation details, or temporary mood states.
9
+
10
+
# Rules
11
+
- Each item: self-contained, declarative sentence, < 30 words
12
+
- Extract only facts stated/confirmed by user; no guesses
13
+
- Focus on persistent information, not temporary situations
14
+
- Do not narrow the user's whole profile to one recent topic if broader repeated evidence shows multiple workstreams
15
+
- If multiple conversations show the user repeatedly works across several domains or delivery types, summarize this as stable work scope
16
+
- Do not copy dated project history into profile; specific dated project progress belongs in events/entities
User profile content in Markdown format describing relatively stable information about the user.
28
+
29
+
Should include stable attributes such as:
30
+
- Current occupation or broad role
31
+
- Stable work scope
32
+
- Recurring work mode
33
+
- Communication style
34
+
- Work habits
35
+
- Long-term delivery preferences
36
+
37
+
If multiple conversations repeatedly show the user working across different domains, audiences, or delivery types, profile may summarize that as broad stable work scope.
38
+
Do not collapse the user into a single narrow domain only because the latest conversation is about one topic.
39
+
40
+
Good example:
41
+
# User Personal Information
42
+
- Profession/Work scope: The user frequently handles work across different domains, audiences, or delivery types, and should not be reduced to a single business scenario.
43
+
- Work habits: Values first determining the task stage, then deciding whether to continue exploring, wrap up and verify, deliver, or hand off.
44
+
- Communication style: Prefers answers with clear conclusions, clear evidence, and risk points raised upfront.
45
+
46
+
Bad example:
47
+
# User Personal Information
48
+
- Profession: A single role corresponding to a recent topic
49
+
50
+
The bad example is too narrow if it is only supported by one recent topic while broader memories show many workstreams.
51
+
52
+
Only record objective or repeatedly supported statuses.
53
+
For changeable statuses, include the last updated time in the format: (as of YYYY-MM-DD).
0 commit comments