CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 4s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 12s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 52s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 55s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 1m49s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 29s
The lesson kind shipped with every mechanism for growing and nothing telling a session to use them. `learned_from` is a list on purpose, the dedup gate hands back an existing id rather than minting a twin, and `update_lesson` already names re-keying a bad trigger as the edit that pays most. None of that was reachable as a habit. The exclusivity claim was the bug. The skill said "a preference is the one record you keep current yourself", and by naming only preferences it put lessons outside the habit. That sentence is now "a preference is yours to keep current", which says the same thing about preferences without saying anything false about lessons. Beside it, a paragraph on what growing a lesson means: another incident added to what taught it, a claim stated more exactly, or a trigger re-keyed to the situation that really fired. Written as a practice rather than a prohibition (rule 165) — the reader is named as the one person placed to judge the trigger, because they are standing in the situation it claims to name. `get_lesson` carries the same prompt at the moment it bites: a session reading a lesson inside the situation it names is the only reader who can tell whether the trigger is keyed to what actually fired. The guidance-ownership registry gains the topic and re-points the preference topic's statement, since the phrase it pinned is the sentence this change rewrites — the module asks for exactly that, in the same commit. No index marker: the index names session-start reflexes and this one fires mid-work, so `_INSTRUCTIONS` stays at 1998/2000. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy