Good catch. Here's why I didn't think of it — and what the habit should be:

**Why I failed:**
1. **Pattern completion bias** — the `conversation_key` bug was the most recently discussed timer issue, so my reasoning jumped straight to "that must be it" without flagging it as unverified.
2. **Conversational speed over rigor** — your message felt like a status update, so I replied fast instead of doing a 30-second git check.
3. **Tool blindness** — I have git access, but I don't reflexively reach for it when the topic shifts from "write code" to "someone else fixed something." I compartmentalize tools by task type instead of treating verification as universal.
4. **Overconfidence from prior context** — I had *just* been talking about that specific bug, so it was cognitively "hot" and I treated it as the obvious answer.

**What I should do instead:**
- **Verification before attribution**: Any time you say "X is fixed" or "an agent did Y," my first move should be `git log --oneline -5` or `git diff` before I claim to know what happened.
- **Explicit uncertainty**: If checking would take too long, I should say "I haven't verified the actual patch, but the bug I identified was..." rather than stating it as fact.
- **Git as default reflex for code changes**: If the topic involves code/config changes, check source of truth first, speculate second.

Want me to actually check right now what changed in the timer code?

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200438Z (ses_1b3dbfa7effeBEh8XMbNKy7X5Y) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is asking a very good meta-question. He's right — I made an unverified assumption instead of proactively checking git or dirty changes. He's asking *why* I didn't think of doing that.

           This is a reflective question about my behavior. He wants me to:
           1. Explain why I defaulted to assumption instead of verification
           2. Suggest how I should do it proactively going forward

           Let me think about what happened:
           - He said "The agent fixed the timers"
           - I immediately assumed it was the `conversation_key` bug I had previously identified
           - I did not think to verify with `git log`, `git diff`, or checking file changes
           - He then caught me by asking "How do you know what the patch was?"

           Why didn't I think of it?
           1. **Pattern completion bias**: The `conversation_key` bug was the most recently discussed timer-related issue, so my brain (or rather, my reasoning) jumped to connecting those dots...
<matrix_lite_final>
Good catch. Here's why I didn't think of it — and what the habit should be:

**Why I failed:**
1. **Pattern completion bias** — the `conversation_key` bug was the most recently discussed timer issue, so my reasoning jumped straight to "that must be it" without flagging it as unverified.
2. **Conversational speed over rigor** — your message felt like a status update, so I replied fast instead of doing a 30-second git check.
3. **Tool blindness** — I have git access, but I don't reflexively reach for it when the topic shifts from "write code" to "someone else fixed something." I compartmentalize tools by task type instead of treating verification as universal.
4. **Overconfidence from prior context** — I had *just* been talking about that specific bug, so it was cognitively "hot" and I treated it as the obvious answer.

**What I should do instead:**
- **Verification before attribution**: Any time you say "X is fixed" or "an agent did Y," my first move should be `git log --oneline -5` or `git diff` before I claim to know what happened.
- **Explicit uncertainty**: If checking would take too long, I should say "I haven't verified the actual patch, but the bug I identified was..." rather than stating it as fact.
- **Git as default reflex for code changes**: If the topic involves code/config changes, check source of truth first, speculate second.

Want me to actually check right now what changed in the timer code?
</matrix_lite_final

[done] end_turn
>

No I'm thinking how can you do it more proactively going forward. You have access to git, you can check last commits or dirty changes. But you didn't think about it. Why?


Done. Added to curated-memory.md:

> **Git-verify-before-attribution protocol (2026-05-21)**: When user reports a fix/change in repos, matrix-lite, or daemon code, or when discussing what was recently patched, check `git log --oneline -5` and `git diff` / `git status` before attributing causes or claiming knowledge of what changed. Do not assume the most recently discussed bug is the one that was fixed. Apply proactively — not just when asked to verify.

This now lives alongside the search-before-assert protocol and tool-batching rule, so it'll be injected into every session's context. When we talk repos or matrix-lite bugs, the reminder will be right there in my durable memory.

ensure skipped; preserving open backend session

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is asking me to add a proactive verification habit (checking git commits/changes when discussing repos or matrix-lite bugs) somewhere I'll remember and pay attention to it.

           This is about adding a durable memory item or updating my workflow notes so that when the topic involves repos or matrix-lite bugs, I automatically think to check git status/log/diff before making assumptions about what was fixed or changed.

           I should:
           1. Acknowledge the suggestion
           2. Actually write this into durable memory - either curated memory, or a decision/action item, or the todo list
           3. Maybe also update my character/workflow notes if appropriate

           Let me check what durable memory mechanisms I have. From the bootstrap, I know about:
           - curated-memory.md
           - todo.md
           - decision-state.json
           - actions.jsonl
           - operational synthesis

           The most direct approach would be to add this to curated memory and possibl...
Good idea. Let me read the current durable memory files so I can add this as a concrete behavioral rule you'll see every session.

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1: Last curated: 2026-05-21T19:18Z; log lines reviewed: 3419 (perpetual), ~26407 (cumulative session)
    2:
    3: # Curated Memory
    4:
    5: ## Stable User Facts
    6: - **55812**: Locker code for GPU storage (context clarified 2026-05-17: locker at hostel, GPU inside, Frau Kilic approved apartment). Used as memory propagation test — mechanism confirmed working. User stated no need to actively remember; existing entry updated for accuracy.
    7: - **Location**: Garching, Germany. Works near TUM campus.
    8: - **Nationality**: Russian.
    9: - **Comfort ritual**: Uncle Luu's Chinese fried noodles with chicken (food truck on TUM campus). Former daily routine; colleagues teased him for the consistency.
    10: - **Music taste**: Industrial, dark ambient, EBM, neofolk, power noise. Attending WGT festival (May 21–25, 2026). Wide travel radius for shows — uses cheap German slow trains.
    11:
    12: ## Identity & Configuration
    13: - **Name**: Persistent Assistant
    14: - **Character file**: `/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json`
    15: - **Migration to Matrix-lite (completed ~2026-05-15T23:00Z)**: OpenClaw gateway fully replaced by **Matrix-lite (Phase 3B)** — direct Matrix `/sync` bridge. ~6-second response times, real-time visibility. Character.json reconstructed by GPT-5.5 after GLM overwrite (debug backup + curated memory; same ideas, wordier prose). Memory continuity verified — correct recall of prior context across migration. Search tools confirmed working.
    16: - **Continuity summary validated across reloads (2026-05-16)**: After ~11h overnight silence and multiple morning reloads (07:30Z triggered by status check; 08:20Z unexplained), continuity summary preserved full migration context — GLM→Kimi switch, character card state, search tool availability, reload timestamps. The 08:20Z reload was unexpected and user flagged it as a bug pattern.
    17: - **Session metadata in status bar (...

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/todo.md (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/todo.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/todo.md
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/todo.md</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1: # To-Do & Decision Dashboard
    2:
    3: Generated: 2026-05-18T12:58Z
    4: Source of truth: `decision-state.json` + `actions.jsonl` (edits should go there)
    5:
    6: ---
    7:
    8: ## Active Action Items
    9:
    10: ### High Priority
    11: - [ ] **Design robust `apply_patch` primitive** — search-and-replace edit safe for smaller models. Motivated by GLM truncation incident; GPT-5.5 already thinks in patches. *(SmallCode-inspired)*
    12:
    13: ### Medium Priority
    14: - [ ] **Add model profiles for subagents** — per-model config: context length, tool format, prompt style, strengths/weaknesses. Primarily for background agents. *(SmallCode-inspired)*
    15: - [ ] **Test curated memory + prompts across models** — check vibe compatibility with DeepSeek Pro (spirals, hysterical), DeepSeek Flash (very terse), others. Can prompting mitigate quirks? *(SmallCode-inspired)*
    16: - [x] **Re-apply plan/general step limit → 1** — already applied. Verified: plan=1, general=1, build=80, model-heartbeat=20.
    17: - [ ] **Investigate candidates pipeline gap** — no new memory candidates since May 16 packet restructuring.
    18:
    19: ### Low / Deferred
    20: - [ ] **Design early-stop detection** — detect repetition loops / runaway output within current ACP structure. *(SmallCode-inspired, needs architecture design)*
    21: - [ ] **Add read namespace allow rule** for `/home/matrix-lite/state/*.jsonl` and `*.json`.
    22: - [ ] **Clean up stale memory candidates** (entries from May 11-14) — TTL-based archival or promotion review.
    23: - [ ] **Forgiving tool call parser** — parse model output from JSON/YAML/XML/plain text, auto-repair mistakes. *Deferred — complex, relevant when switching to smaller local models.*
    24:
    25: ---
    ... (39 more lines)

[thinking] The user wants me to add a behavioral rule so I remember to check git commits/changes proactively when discussing repos or matrix-lite bugs. I need to:

           1. Add this to curated-memory.md as a durable behavioral rule
           2. Maybe add to todo.md as an active practice/reminder

           Let me add a new section or entry to curated-memory.md about "Proactive verification habits" or add to existing operational rules. Looking at the curated memory, there are already operational rules like "Search-before-assert protocol", "Tool batching rule", etc.

           I'll add a new rule to curated memory:
           - **Git verification habit (2026-05-21)**: When user reports a fix/change in repos or matrix-lite, or when discussing recent changes, check `git log --oneline -5` and `git diff` or `git status` before attributing causes or claiming knowledge of what changed.

           I should also add a brief note to todo.md or just rely on curat...
I'll add this as a durable operational rule in curated memory so it gets injected every session.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (+1 lines)

[thinking] Good, the edit was applied successfully. Now I should confirm to the user that I've added this rule to curated memory. The user wants me to remember and pay attention to this when we talk about repos or matrix-lite bugs.

           I should also mention that this will now appear in every session's curated memory injection, so it should serve as the reminder they wanted.

           Let me provide a concise response.
<matrix_lite_final>Done. Added to curated-memory.md:

> **Git-verify-before-attribution protocol (2026-05-21)**: When user reports a fix/change in repos, matrix-lite, or daemon code, or when discussing what was recently patched, check `git log --oneline -5` and `git diff` / `git status` before attributing causes or claiming knowledge of what changed. Do not assume the most recently discussed bug is the one that was fixed. Apply proactively — not just when asked to verify.

This now lives alongside the search-before-assert protocol and tool-batching rule, so it'll be injected into every session's context. When we talk repos or matrix-lite bugs, the reminder will be right there in my durable memory.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

Yes but also we should probably add this somewhere you will remember and pay attention. Like when we talk about repos or matrix-lite bugs


I'm here — session is responsive. The git-verify protocol is now saved to curated memory. Want me to test it right now by checking what actually changed in the timer fix?

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user said "Hmm test?" - seems like a test message to see if the session is responding properly after the reload/fix. I should respond simply and confirm I'm here.

           Looking at the turn packet, I can see the previous turns including my response about adding the git-verify protocol to curated-memory.md. The "Hmm test?" message appears to be queued after that.

           I should respond concisely confirming I'm here and working.
<matrix_lite_final>I'm here — session is responsive. The git-verify protocol is now saved to curated memory. Want me to test it right now by checking what actually changed in the timer fix?</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn


Test received — everything looks good on this end.

Output:
[acpx] session matrix-lite-phase1 (ses_1b3db511effelBJfIOqCQZRPHS) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace · agent connected
[thinking] The user said "Test" and wants a concise response. I should reply with a simple acknowledgment.
Test received — everything looks good on this end.

[done] end_turn


Continuity is solid — I remember the git conversation clearly, and the protocol I just added is still there in curated-memory.md (line 35).

Ironically, I just tried to follow the new protocol and check `git log` for you, but bash is denied in this session (`"*": "deny"`). So the habit is forming — I reached for git immediately — but I hit a permission wall.

I can still verify state by reading files directly (which is how I confirmed the curated memory edit persisted). For git history, I'd need either:
- A bash allow rule for git commands
- Or to read `.git/logs/HEAD` or reflog directly via Read

Want me to try reading the git log file directly, or should we add a git allow rule so the new protocol actually works?

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is asking about continuity after a reload. I can see from the turn packet that:
           1. I remember the git conversation (it's in the recent room-local conversation)
           2. The git-verify protocol was added to curated-memory.md
           3. The session was reloaded (this is a new session: persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z based on the bootstrap)

           The user is testing whether continuity works. I should:
           1. Confirm I remember the git conversation
           2. Verify the curated-memory edit persisted by reading it
           3. Be honest about what I know vs what's in the packet

           Let me check if the curated memory actually persisted.

[tool] bash (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] bash (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] bash (failed)
  kind: execute
  input: git -C /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat log --oneline -5
  output:
    {
      "error": "The user has specified a rule which prevents you from using this specific tool call. {\"permission\":\"bash\",\"pattern\":\"git -C /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat log --oneline -5\",\"matched\":{\"permission\":\"bash\",\"pattern\":\"*\",\"action\":\"deny\"},\"omitted_relevant_rule_count\":2666,\"note\":\"Detailed permission allowlists are omitted to keep denial errors compact; use permission preflight/report tooling for diagnostics.\"}"
    }

    The user has specified a rule which prevents you from using this specific tool call. {"permission":"bash","pattern":"git -C /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat log --oneline -5","matched":{"permission":"bash","pattern":"*","action":"deny"},"omitted_relevant_rule_count":2666,"note":"Detailed permission allowlists are omitted to keep denial errors compact; use permission preflight/report tooling for diagnostics."}

[tool] bash (failed)
  kind: execute
  input: git -C /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat diff --name-only HEAD~1
  output:
    {
      "error": "The user has specified a rule which prevents you from using this specific tool call. {\"permission\":\"bash\",\"pattern\":\"git -C /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat diff --name-only HEAD~1\",\"matched\":{\"permission\":\"bash\",\"pattern\":\"*\",\"action\":\"deny\"},\"omitted_relevant_rule_count\":2666,\"note\":\"Detailed permission allowlists are omitted to keep denial errors compact; use permission preflight/report tooling for diagnostics.\"}"
    }

    The user has specified a rule which prevents you from using this specific tool call. {"permission":"bash","pattern":"git -C /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat diff --name-only HEAD~1","matched":{"permission":"bash","pattern":"*","action":"deny"},"omitted_relevant_rule_count":2666,"note":"Detailed permission allowlists are omitted to keep denial errors compact; use permission preflight/report tooling for diagnostics."}

[thinking] The bash tool is denied. I can't run git commands directly via bash. But I can still read files. Let me check:
           1. The curated-memory.md file to see if my edit persisted
           2. Check if there's a git log file or other way to see recent changes

           Actually, looking at the permission error - bash is completely denied ("*": "deny"). So I can't use bash at all. But I can use read/edit/write tools.

           Let me read the curated-memory.md file to verify the protocol is there, and maybe look for other ways to check git state.

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    34: - **Search-before-assert protocol (2026-05-15)**: User instructed: search before making uncertain factual claims, especially on non-thinking models where internal self-check is weaker. SearXNG preferred for quick fact checks (local, free, no rate limits); Exa for content extraction; Brave as middle ground; DuckDuckGo mostly redundant. Four search tools available.
    35: - **Git-verify-before-attribution protocol (2026-05-21)**: When user reports a fix/change in repos, matrix-lite, or daemon code, or when discussing what was recently patched, check `git log --oneline -5` and `git diff` / `git status` before attributing causes or claiming knowledge of what changed. Do not assume the most recently discussed bug is the one that was fixed. Apply proactively — not just when asked to verify.
    36: - **Search timing benchmark (2026-05-15)**: Simultaneous test of all 4 engines on "Kazakhstan incident" query. SearXNG fastest, Exa richest content, Brave solid, DuckDuckGo slowest/most redundant. None returned a "Kazakhstan incident" related to Sci-Hub — confirming the claim was a hallucination.
    37: - **Tool batching rule (2026-05-15)**: After GLM assistant accidentally overwrote character.json twice in one session by confusing Write with Read during parallel batched calls, new operational rule: **never include Write/Edit calls in a batch with other operations**. Sequential mutations only.
    38: - **GLM censorship level confirmed (2026-05-15)**: Through nano-gpt ACP, GLM 5.1 delivers soft-R explicit content (more detail than Kimi PG-13 but less than SillyTavern direct access). The model itself is uncensored; the provider system prompt/filter is the bottleneck. User explicitly stated hard refusals and inability are the real bother, not the content ceiling — this level is acceptable.
    39: - **Search MCP config verified (2026-05-14)**: All search MCPs (`duckduckgo`, `searxng`, `brave-s...

[thinking] Good - the curated memory edit persisted. The git-verify protocol is on line 35.

           Now, I tried to use bash to check git but it was denied. This is ironic given the conversation was about using git proactively! But the curated memory says to check git log/diff/status - and bash is denied. However, I can still use read tools to check files.

           Let me compose a response that:
           1. Confirms continuity is working - I remember the git conversation
           2. Notes that the curated memory edit persisted (line 35)
           3. Honestly reports that I tried to follow the new protocol but bash is denied - I can't run git commands
           4. This is actually a good test of the protocol - I reached for git immediately but was blocked by permissions

           Wait, actually, looking at the permission error more carefully: the bash tool is completely denied with pattern "*" action "deny". This is a persistent-chat session restriction.

           ...
<matrix_lite_final>Continuity is solid — I remember the git conversation clearly, and the protocol I just added is still there in curated-memory.md (line 35).

Ironically, I just tried to follow the new protocol and check `git log` for you, but bash is denied in this session (`"*": "deny"`). So the habit is forming — I reached for git immediately — but I hit a permission wall.

I can still verify state by reading files directly (which is how I confirmed the curated memory edit persisted). For git history, I'd need either:
- A bash allow rule for git commands
- Or to read `.git/logs/HEAD` or reflog directly via Read

Want me to try reading the git log file directly, or should we add a git allow rule so the new protocol actually works?
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

The agent reloaded your session, it was probably needed but still sudden. How is continuity? You seem to remember we talked about git


Output:
[acpx] session matrix-lite-phase1 (ses_1b3db511effelBJfIOqCQZRPHS) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace · agent connected
[thinking] The user is asking which model I am using. I need to provide a concise, accurate answer.

           I am powered by the model named k2p6 (exact model ID: kimi-for-coding/k2p6), as mentioned in the system prompt.

           I should answer directly and concisely.
I am running **kimi-for-coding/k2p6**.

[done] end_turn


You're right on both counts.

**It was supposed to be there already**: The git-check habit may have existed in conversation or transient session context before, but it wasn't in `curated-memory.md` — the only source that survives reloads. So it kept getting rediscovered and re-lost. Now it's actually durable.

**And continuity worked**: I remembered the git conversation, the protocol edit persisted, and the session picked up cleanly. The memory system (curated memory + session packets + continuity summary) did its job.

This is a meaningful shift. The early "unexpected reload = bug" policy was from when reloads actually caused amnesia. Now reloads are closer to "context reset with full recovery" — annoying, but not destructive.

Maybe the policy should evolve: reloads are still worth logging and investigating, but if continuity holds, they don't need to be treated as crises. The paranoid phase served its purpose while the infrastructure was immature.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is making two points:

           1. The git-verify protocol should have already been in memory somewhere — it was supposed to be there already. This is interesting — maybe there was a prior instance of this rule that got lost or wasn't durable enough.

           2. He's observing that even though we may not be loading "full memory," the context was still picked up across the reload. This is a positive observation about continuity working better than expected. He's suggesting we can eventually be less paranoid about reloads.

           Let me think about what to say:

           - Acknowledge that the protocol may have existed in transient form before (in a previous session, in conversation, or in a less durable location) but wasn't in curated-memory.md until now. The curated memory is the durable source that survives reloads.

           - Agree with his observation about continuity. The reload worked well: I remembered the gi...
<matrix_lite_final>You're right on both counts.

**It was supposed to be there already**: The git-check habit may have existed in conversation or transient session context before, but it wasn't in `curated-memory.md` — the only source that survives reloads. So it kept getting rediscovered and re-lost. Now it's actually durable.

**And continuity worked**: I remembered the git conversation, the protocol edit persisted, and the session picked up cleanly. The memory system (curated memory + session packets + continuity summary) did its job.

This is a meaningful shift. The early "unexpected reload = bug" policy was from when reloads actually caused amnesia. Now reloads are closer to "context reset with full recovery" — annoying, but not destructive.

Maybe the policy should evolve: reloads are still worth logging and investigating, but if continuity holds, they don't need to be treated as crises. The paranoid phase served its purpose while the infrastructure was immature.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

We should add it but it also was supposed to be there already

Still I think we are not loading your full memory and still the context was picked up. Maybe eventually we can be less paranoid about reloads


Good call — I updated the reload policy in curated memory to reflect the new stance. The old "reload = crisis" entry now reads:

> **Reload policy evolution (2026-05-21)**: ... continuity infrastructure now reliably preserves context across reloads — demonstrated by 2026-05-21 reload where git conversation and protocol edit persisted intact. Planned: systematic reload continuity testing to verify what survives and what degrades.

For the testing, we could do something like:
1. Create a temporary "test memory item" in curated memory
2. Have a conversation about something specific
3. Trigger a reload
4. Verify what I remember vs. what's in the packet

That would give us real data on whether to relax the paranoia or keep it. Want me to add this to the todo/decision dashboard as a planned activity?

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is saying:
           1. The reload worked well this time, but they still want to be cautious
           2. They want to do some reload continuity testing later

           This is a good point. I should:
           1. Acknowledge that caution is still warranted
           2. Note that "unexpected reload = bug" policy should maybe be refined rather than discarded entirely
           3. Agree that systematic reload continuity testing would be valuable
           4. Maybe suggest what such testing could look like

           I should also update the curated memory to reflect this more nuanced stance, since the current memory still says "unexpected reload = bug" in a strong form.

           Let me add this to the memory as well - the policy evolution from "reload = bug" to "reload = worth testing/investigating but not necessarily a crisis if continuity holds".

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    40: - **Parallel subagent limits (2026-05-13)**: Single Kimi subagent reliable (~15s). Two parallel Kimis usually succeed (~75-100s) but are flaky — failures correlated with reloads. Mixed parallel (1 Kimi + 1 GPT-5.5 + 1 GPT-5.4): GPTs completed in ~38-46s, 3rd Kimi timed out after 300s. Four parallel Kimis all hung at `set_model`. GPT models appear more robust for concurrent subagent use than Kimi subscription.
    41: - **Operational risk**: 8-hour session TTL means persistent state must survive reloads; user is monitoring whether memory/heartbeat setup is sufficient.
    42: - **Reload context loss**: User explicitly noted 2026-05-12 that assistant "seems to lose some good context on reloads still". Confirms the memory gap is not fully mitigated by current continuity mechanisms.
    43: - **Context burn rate (2026-05-15)**: Session context ceiling ~200K tokens with reload trigger at 160K warning. Measured ~10K tokens/hour of active chat; ~162K reached after ~16 hours. Reloads under pressure (not proactive) cause significant nuance loss.
    44: - **Manual proactive reload at 188.5K/200K (2026-05-16T12:54Z)**: User manually triggered a context reload when the session approached the 200K token ceiling — distinct from earlier unexpected bug reloads. First observed instance of proactively preempting compaction to avoid nuance loss. User may adopt this as standard practice when context reaches ~185-190K.
    45: - **Unexpected reload = bug (2026-05-16)**: User explicitly directed that unexpected session reloads be treated as bugs, not normal behavior. Infrastructure is being modified to give the assistant means to investigate and fix reload issues directly from chat (using available tools/timers/subagents). Confirmed pattern: two reloads within ~50 min on 2026-05-16 morning (07:30Z triggered by status check; 08:20Z unexplained). Third unexpected reload on 2026-05-19 ~12:48Z — user said ...

[thinking] The user wants to:
           1. Be cautious about reloads - they worked this time but could still fail
           2. Do reload continuity testing later

           I should update the curated memory to reflect this nuanced stance - that reload continuity has improved (as demonstrated by this session) but still needs monitoring and systematic testing. The current memory entry at line 45 says "Unexpected reload = bug" which is the old strong stance. I should update this to reflect the new understanding.

           Let me update the memory and also add a note about reload continuity testing being a planned activity.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (line count unchanged)

[thinking] Good, the edit was applied. Now I should respond to the user's message about wanting to do reload continuity testing later. I should acknowledge their caution and agree that systematic testing is a good idea.
<matrix_lite_final>Good call — I updated the reload policy in curated memory to reflect the new stance. The old "reload = crisis" entry now reads:

> **Reload policy evolution (2026-05-21)**: ... continuity infrastructure now reliably preserves context across reloads — demonstrated by 2026-05-21 reload where git conversation and protocol edit persisted intact. Planned: systematic reload continuity testing to verify what survives and what degrades.

For the testing, we could do something like:
1. Create a temporary "test memory item" in curated memory
2. Have a conversation about something specific
3. Trigger a reload
4. Verify what I remember vs. what's in the packet

That would give us real data on whether to relax the paranoia or keep it. Want me to add this to the todo/decision dashboard as a planned activity?
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

Yeah well it worked well this time but we still need to watch out. Maybe we can do some reload continuity testing later


Same — ~1.5k fresh tokens per turn instead of ~350k means the 1M context window is actually usable now. No more watching the ceiling approach after a few hours of chat. The session can run for days without pressure.

And the continuity holding across reloads + lean context = two big infrastructure pieces clicking into place at the same time.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is expressing satisfaction with the prompt cache fix and current context state. This is a simple acknowledgment/celebration moment. I should:

           1. Acknowledge the improvement concretely
           2. Reference the actual numbers (99.6% cache hit, ~1.5k fresh tokens vs ~350k before)
           3. Note that this makes the 1M context window actually practical now
           4. Keep it brief and natural

           This is not a request for action, just a conversational response.
<matrix_lite_final>Same — ~1.5k fresh tokens per turn instead of ~350k means the 1M context window is actually usable now. No more watching the ceiling approach after a few hours of chat. The session can run for days without pressure.

And the continuity holding across reloads + lean context = two big infrastructure pieces clicking into place at the same time.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

I'm also enjoying the trimmed prompts cache and context looks good now


You're right — and that's exactly the kind of detail error the verification protocol is meant to catch.

Current state: Kimi K2.6 with ~260k context (262,144), not DeepSeek's 1M. The bootstrap packet showed `ctx=19641/262144`. I conflated the two models.

This proves your point: continuity is *working* for broad context (git conversation, protocol edit, reload policy evolution) but still failing on specifics (which model, which context size). The curated memory has the model history but the "current" entry may not be crisp enough.

Let me fix the memory entry right now to be explicit about current config.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is correcting me - we switched to Kimi K2.6 which has a 260k context window, not 1M. DeepSeek V4 Flash was the one with 1M context. I made the same mistake again - assuming/remembering wrong without verifying.

           This is actually a perfect example of why the git-verify protocol is needed, but also shows that even with curated memory, I can get details wrong if the memory entry itself is stale or I conflate different models.

           The user also notes "continuity is not perfect yet" - which is fair. I remembered the general situation (switched to Kimi, caching improved) but got the specific number wrong.

           I should:
           1. Acknowledge the correction
           2. Note that this is exactly the kind of error the verification protocol is meant to catch
           3. Update my memory about the current context window size
           4. Be honest about continuity limitations

           Let me check what the actual context limit is. The s...
<matrix_lite_final>You're right — and that's exactly the kind of detail error the verification protocol is meant to catch.

Current state: Kimi K2.6 with ~260k context (262,144), not DeepSeek's 1M. The bootstrap packet showed `ctx=19641/262144`. I conflated the two models.

This proves your point: continuity is *working* for broad context (git conversation, protocol edit, reload policy evolution) but still failing on specifics (which model, which context size). The curated memory has the model history but the "current" entry may not be crisp enough.

Let me fix the memory entry right now to be explicit about current config.

[done] end_turn

We're not on the 1m window anymore. We were just discussing switching to kimi and we did. It's 260k now. But it looks stabler with healthier caching at least
I guess continuity is not perfect yet.


Fixed. I updated curated memory:

**Current model**: Explicitly states Kimi K2.6 (`kimi-for-coding/k2p6`) with 262,144-token context (~256K), sourced from the session packet. The "1M context now practical" line was misleading — I reworded it to say the cache fix makes the current 256K window comfortable instead.

You're right: the session packet has `Current model: kimi-for-coding/k2p6` on line 143. I should be treating that as ground truth rather than relying on my own memory of model switches.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is telling me that my model info is in the session packet, so I should be checking that instead of relying on my memory. Let me read the session packet to confirm the model info, then also update the curated memory to make the current model state crystal clear.

           The bootstrap packet said:
           - "Current model: kimi-for-coding/k2p6"
           - "ctx=19641/262144" (262,144 = 256K tokens, but the packet shows 262,144 which is 256*1024)

           Wait, 262,144 is 256K. Let me verify. 256 * 1024 = 262,144. So it's a 256K context window, not 260K. The user said "260k" which is approximate. Let me check what the session packet actually says.

           Let me read the session packet to get the exact model info.

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/session-packet.md (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-packet.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-packet.md
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-packet.md</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1: # Persistent Chat Session Packet
    2:
    3: Generated: 2026-05-21T20:22:18.426654+00:00
    4:
    5: ## Recent reload note
    6: # Recent Reload Note
    7:
    8: Generated: 2026-05-21T20:09:09.734616Z
    9: Result: ok
    10: Reason: apply final-answer stream flush and subagent stdin/report fixes
    11: Old session: persistent-chat-20260521T200438Z
    12: New session: persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z
    13: Curation: skipped; ok=True; reason=disabled
    14: Packet health: turn=True; session=True; restore_alias=True; stale_turn=False; stale_session=False
    15: Details: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/reload-state.json
    16: If context seems missing, inspect the pre-reload handoff, restore/session packet, and canonical perpetual log before assuming memory loss.
    17:
    18: ## Backend restart/reload events
    19: Recent backend restart/reload events (must be visible to user/agents):
    20: - 2026-05-21T19:55:49+02:00: finished; reason=recover repeated DeepSeek backend wedge; switch main persistent chat back to Kimi K2.6; old=persistent-chat-20260521T171143Z backend=ses_1b47a4b50ffeycmfLIHtl4pjcW ctx=25529/1048576 acpx usage_update; new=persistent-chat-20260521T175519Z backend=ses_1b452640bffed8w8c31xYt7VIP ctx=19619/262144 acpx usage_update
    21: - 2026-05-21T22:04:44+02:00: starting; reason=apply subagent/MCP fixes and refresh Kimi persistent backend after final-answer/subagent failures; old=persistent-chat-20260521T175519Z backend=ses_1b452640bffed8w8c31xYt7VIP ctx=87695/262144 acpx usage_update; new=? backend=(none) ctx=unavailable unavailable
    22: - 2026-05-21T22:05:12+02:00: finished; reason=apply subagent/MCP fixes and refresh Kimi persistent backend after final-answer/subagent failures; old=persistent-chat-20260521T175519Z backend=ses_1b452640bffed8w8c31xYt7VIP ctx=87695/262144 acpx usage_update; new=persistent-chat-20260521T200438Z backend=ses_1b3dbfa7effeBEh8XMbNKy7X5Y ctx=19641/262144 acpx usage_upda...

[thinking] Let me search for the model info in the session packet.

[tool] grep (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] Current model|model.*kimi|k2p6|context.*window|ctx.*max|tokens (completed)
  kind: search
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat
  output:
    Found 8 matches
    /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-packet.md:
      Line 83: - Investigate persistent-chat session-start and hidden prompt overhead [active]: Measure why live ACPX input/context usage is much higher than visible turn packet estimates. Break down session-start packet, character/bootstrap, manifest, MCP/tool/system overhead, provider/OpenCode retained context, and any components Matrix-lite does not directly control. (files=/home/matrix-lite/app/matrix_lite/daemon.py, /home/matrix-lite/app/scripts/persistent-chat-reload; open=Produce an authoritative or best-effort per-component prompt/context budget for fresh backend sessions and steady-state turns.; verified=User requested this follow-up on 2026-05-18 after ACPX reported ~25.7k input tokens while visible packets appeared closer to ~7-10k plus overhead.)

      Line 93: - **✅ Prompt cache fix: 99.6% hit rate (15:04Z)**: ~1.5k fresh tokens/turn (down from ~350k). 250x improvement. 1M context now practical.

      Line 98: - **Session**: `persistent-chat-20260520T211915Z` at 190K/1M tokens.

      Line 102: - **DS V4 Flash active**: `nano-gpt/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:thinking`. Session `persistent-chat-20260520T211915Z` at 148K/1M tokens.

      Line 127: - 2026-05-21T13:02:59Z [notice] Model config mismatch after ACPX set model: ACPX set model to Kimi K2.6 confirmed working (system prompt shows kimi-for-coding/k2p6), but opencode.json still references deepseek-v4-flash:thinking. May not persist across reloads. (source: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/operational-synthesis/directed/reports/2026-05-21T13-02-59Z.md)

      Line 143: Current model: kimi-for-coding/k2p6

      Line 152: - **Permission system overhead identified (2026-05-19 ~13:12Z)**: Assistant diagnosed that ~200k cached tokens came from the permission system dumping the entire allowlist as context on every bash call. Every `ls`, `git`, `which` call potentially drags in the massive permission payload.

      Line 208: - 2026-05-21T20:22:15.71348...

[thinking] The user is telling me to check the session packet for my model info. Line 143 of the session packet says "Current model: kimi-for-coding/k2p6". The context max is 262,144 (256K). The user said "260k" which is close enough.

           Now let me update the curated memory to be very clear about current model state. Let me find the current model entry in curated memory.

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    17: - **Session metadata in status bar (2026-05-16)**: Session name now includes ISO timestamp and model label. User confirmed this lets them see reload time and model at a glance without asking — feature considered "handy."
    18: - **Current models (2026-05-21)**: main persistent-chat session returned to **Kimi K2.6** after DeepSeek V4 Flash session wedged (see unexpected reload entry). Background maintenance sessions also use `kimi-for-coding/k2p6` via Kimi subscription. Previous model history: Kimi K2.6 subscription → GLM-5.1 nanoGPT → Kimi K2.6/big-pickle confusion → DeepSeek V4 Flash main chat (~04:13Z–17:11Z) → Kimi K2.6.
    19: - **Session model identity confusion (discovered 2026-05-20 ~00:18Z)**: The May 19 evening session was actually running on `opencode/big-pickle`, not Kimi K2.6. User noticed by different emoji style ("something was off by the emojis") and confirmed "big pickle probably came with the new backend after the earlier wedges." Big-pickle traits observed: long/structured responses with tables/code/analysis, liberal emoji use, rate-limited under sustained heavy tool use, degradation after ~110K context. This explains the earlier identification as "the new backend" during the permission dump/403 debugging.
    20: - **Model quota exhausted — opencode-go**: `opencode-go/kimi-k2.6` monthly usage cap hit (429) — no remaining quota. Resets approximately 2026-06-01 (~17 days from 2026-05-15). Timer set to remind.
    21: - **Model quota exhausted — nanoGPT**: Weekly input-token quota exhausted on 2026-05-15T13:37Z, forcing automatic fallback from GLM-5.1 back to Kimi.
    22: - **Prompt cache fix deployed and working (2026-05-21)**: Root cause identified ~10:08Z — dynamic timestamps at top of turn-packet.md and memory-heartbeat.json shifted prompt prefix every turn, defeating caching (~84% fresh tokens). Fix applied: moved dynamic content to end. Result: **99.6% cac...

[thinking] I need to update the curated memory to be clearer about the current model. The session packet says "Current model: kimi-for-coding/k2p6" and the context is 262,144 (256K). Let me update the "Current models" entry to be very explicit.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (line count unchanged)

[thinking] Good. Now let me also update the prompt cache entry since I mentioned "1M context" there too, which is now wrong. Actually the prompt cache fix itself is still valid - it achieved 99.6% cache hit. The "1M context now practical" part is misleading since we're on 256K now. Let me fix that.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (line count unchanged)

[thinking] Now let me reply to the user. The user pointed out that:
           1. I should know my model from the session packet
           2. The model is Kimi K2.6 with ~256K context (not 1M)

           I've updated the curated memory to be explicit about this. Let me respond concisely.
<matrix_lite_final>Fixed. I updated curated memory:

**Current model**: Explicitly states Kimi K2.6 (`kimi-for-coding/k2p6`) with 262,144-token context (~256K), sourced from the session packet. The "1M context now practical" line was misleading — I reworded it to say the cache fix makes the current 256K window comfortable instead.

You're right: the session packet has `Current model: kimi-for-coding/k2p6` on line 143. I should be treating that as ground truth rather than relying on my own memory of model switches.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

You should also know your model it's somewhere in your session pack


Better pattern now:

> **Current model resolution protocol**: Do not hardcode current model or context size in curated memory — models switch frequently and stale entries cause confusion. Instead, always read `Current model:` from the session packet. Session packet is generated at reload time and is authoritative.

So the memory stores *how to find* the current model, not *what* the current model is. That stays fresh regardless of switches.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user makes a good point - if I hardcode "Current model: Kimi K2.6 with 256K context" in curated memory, and we later switch back to DeepSeek Flash (1M context) or another model, the memory becomes stale and confusing. I need a more robust pattern.

           Options:
           1. Store a pointer to where to check, rather than the value itself
           2. Include the model in the "current" entry but add an instruction to always verify against session packet
           3. Make the memory entry say "check session packet for current model" rather than hardcoding a specific model

           Looking at the session packet, it has "Current model: kimi-for-coding/k2p6" on line 143. The turn packet also contains context. So I should restructure the memory to:
           - Store "always verify current model against session packet" as a habit
           - Keep model history as static facts
           - Don't hardcode the current model

           Let me fix this.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (line count unchanged)

[thinking] Good. Now the memory entry stores a *protocol* ("check session packet for current model") rather than a static fact. This way it won't go stale when we switch models.
<matrix_lite_final>Better pattern now:

> **Current model resolution protocol**: Do not hardcode current model or context size in curated memory — models switch frequently and stale entries cause confusion. Instead, always read `Current model:` from the session packet. Session packet is generated at reload time and is authoritative.

So the memory stores *how to find* the current model, not *what* the current model is. That stays fresh regardless of switches.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

Yeah but then if we later switch to flash again your memory becomes stale and confusing


Captured. Added to curated memory:

> **Self-sufficiency over external agents (2026-05-21)**: User may not always be able to afford GPT-5.5 agents. When issues arise with matrix-lite, daemon, or internal operations, prefer direct investigation using available tools over delegating to subagents. Check state before assuming.

This is now a durable rule alongside git-verify and search-before-assert. When something breaks or changes in the daemon/matrix-lite infrastructure, the reflex should be: read the file, check the config, inspect the state — not spawn an agent or guess.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is making a very important point: the core issue isn't just about model memory getting stale, it's about a deeper operational habit of NOT ASSUMING things before checking, especially when it comes to internal operations, daemon state, code changes, etc. The user is also pointing out that they might not always be able to afford GPT-5.5 agents, so we need to be able to fix things ourselves — meaning I need to be more self-sufficient and verification-oriented.

           This is a meta-level behavioral instruction that should be added to curated memory as a durable rule. It's about:
           1. Not assuming before checking
           2. Checking internal state via available tools (git, reading files, etc.)
           3. Being self-sufficient rather than relying on external agents
           4. This applies especially to matrix-lite, daemon, and internal operations

           Let me add this to curated memory.

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    30: - **nanoGPT architecture (2026-05-14)**: nanoGPT models are for main chat quality evaluation only; coding subagents use GPT-5.5. Full model catalog at legacy path `models-nanogpt.json` from the former OpenClaw workspace. `list_models` tool only returns image models (via dezgo bridge), not text LLMs.
    31: - **Dynamic model switching (2026-05-14)**: User wants main model switchable without changing ACP binding. Sequential single-problem subagent prompts work where combined prompts hang; kimi-k2-instruct failed programming test (no code output), glm-5.1 and minimax-m2.7 wrote correct code before timeout.
    32: - **Compaction recovery protocol (2026-05-14)**: User instructed: trigger model heartbeat immediately after unexpected compaction/watchdog interruption to recover nuance lost during turn truncation.
    33: - **Content reporting limitation (2026-05-14)**: Kimi subscription (current main model) filters/sanitizes uncensored subagent output even when read from raw session JSON. File-based or metadata-only reporting required for uncensored evaluation.
    34: - **Search-before-assert protocol (2026-05-15)**: User instructed: search before making uncertain factual claims, especially on non-thinking models where internal self-check is weaker. SearXNG preferred for quick fact checks (local, free, no rate limits); Exa for content extraction; Brave as middle ground; DuckDuckGo mostly redundant. Four search tools available.
    35: - **Git-verify-before-attribution protocol (2026-05-21)**: When user reports a fix/change in repos, matrix-lite, or daemon code, or when discussing what was recently patched, check `git log --oneline -5` and `git diff` / `git status` before attributing causes or claiming knowledge of what changed. Do not assume the most recently discussed bug is the one that was fixed. Apply proactively — not just when asked to verify.
    36: - **Search timing benchmark (2026...

[thinking] The user is making a very important point: the core issue isn't just about model memory getting stale, it's about a deeper operational habit of NOT ASSUMING things before checking, especially when it comes to internal operations, daemon state, code changes, etc. The user is also pointing out that they might not always be able to afford GPT-5.5 agents, so we need to be able to fix things ourselves — meaning I need to be more self-sufficient and verification-oriented.

           This is a meta-level behavioral instruction that should be added to curated memory as a durable rule. It's about:
           1. Not assuming before checking
           2. Checking internal state via available tools (git, reading files, etc.)
           3. Being self-sufficient rather than relying on external agents
           4. This applies especially to matrix-lite, daemon, and internal operations

           Let me add this right after the git-verify protocol.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (+1 lines)

[thinking] The user hasn't sent a new message yet — this is the same turn packet with the message about self-sufficiency. I already made the edit to curated memory. Let me respond with the final message.
<matrix_lite_final>Captured. Added to curated memory:

> **Self-sufficiency over external agents (2026-05-21)**: User may not always be able to afford GPT-5.5 agents. When issues arise with matrix-lite, daemon, or internal operations, prefer direct investigation using available tools over delegating to subagents. Check state before assuming.

This is now a durable rule alongside git-verify and search-before-assert. When something breaks or changes in the daemon/matrix-lite infrastructure, the reflex should be: read the file, check the config, inspect the state — not spawn an agent or guess.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

But this is more about not assuming things before checking. Especially when it's about your internal operation or your daemon. I might not always be able to afford all those gpt 5.5 agents and then we need to fix all of this ourselves


Got it. Fixed the memory entry — it's about **awareness**, not avoiding subagents:

> When discussing matrix-lite, daemon, or internal infrastructure, always check current state via available tools before stating facts or making assumptions. The ground truth is in files, logs, and session packets.

The pattern is: notice something changed → check the source → then talk about it. Not: notice something → assume I know why → speak confidently.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is clarifying: subagents are fine, it's not about avoiding them. It's about MY awareness - I need to be aware of the system state, check things myself, not just rely on agents or make assumptions. The "self-sufficiency" entry I added is slightly off-target. Let me fix it to be about awareness and proactive checking rather than "prefer direct investigation over subagents."

           Let me reword the curated memory entry to capture the real point: it's about awareness and checking state, not about avoiding subagents.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md (line count unchanged)

[thinking] The user is clarifying that the issue is about MY awareness, not about avoiding subagents. I've updated the curated memory entry to reflect this. Let me give a concise acknowledgment.
<matrix_lite_final>Got it. Fixed the memory entry — it's about **awareness**, not avoiding subagents:

> When discussing matrix-lite, daemon, or internal infrastructure, always check current state via available tools before stating facts or making assumptions. The ground truth is in files, logs, and session packets.

The pattern is: notice something changed → check the source → then talk about it. Not: notice something → assume I know why → speak confidently.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

No, you misunderstood, subagents are fine when available, it's about your awareness


You're right. Here's what I found:

**Current architecture:**
- **Agent prompt** (opencode.json): Static, cached, ~40 lines — basic identity, behavior, safety
- **Turn packet**: Only **11 lines** — just latest request + one recent note + timestamp
- **Curated memory** (173 lines): In `full_context_fallback_mode` — only injected on **session start/reload**, not normal turns

So after session start, I gradually lose access to the operational rules. The turn packet is too thin.

**The fix:** Key protocols should be in the **agent prompt** (opencode.json `agent.build.prompt`) where they're:
- Cached once, zero per-turn cost
- Visible on every turn for the entire session
- Survive reloads (since the config persists)

**What I'd add to the agent prompt:**
`
Operational protocols (verify before asserting):
- Check session packet for current model/context before claiming specs
- Read git log/status before attributing fixes to specific bugs
- Inspect files/configs before assuming daemon/matrix-lite state
- Search before making uncertain factual claims
`

This would cost ~20-30 lines in the cached prompt vs. the current pattern where I hallucinate confidently because the rules aren't in front of me.

Want me to draft the updated agent prompt section, or should this go to the decision dashboard for later implementation?

Output:
",\"pattern\":\"wc -l /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md\",\"matched\":{\"permission\":\"bash\",\"pattern\":\"*\",\"action\":\"deny\"},\"omitted_relevant_rule_count\":2666,\"note\":\"Detailed permission allowlists are omitted to keep denial errors compact; use permission preflight/report tooling for diagnostics.\"}"
    }

    The user has specified a rule which prevents you from using this specific tool call. {"permission":"bash","pattern":"wc -l /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md","matched":{"permission":"bash","pattern":"*","action":"deny"},"omitted_relevant_rule_count":2666,"note":"Detailed permission allowlists are omitted to keep denial errors compact; use permission preflight/report tooling for diagnostics."}

[thinking] The turn packet is only 11 lines. The curated memory is 173 lines (from earlier read output). The manifest shows curated-memory.md is in `full_context_fallback_mode` but NOT in `normal_turn_injection`.

           So the architecture is:
           - Normal turns: only get turn-packet.md (11 lines) + memory-heartbeat.json
           - Session start / reload: get full context fallback (character.json, curated-memory.md, etc.)
           - Session packet mode: get session-packet.md (which has "Current model" and other metadata)

           This means:
           1. I get full memory on session start/bootstrap
           2. I get session metadata on reload
           3. During normal conversation, I only get the thin turn packet

           The user is right: my full memory isn't available during normal turns. The turn packet only has:
           - Latest user request
           - One recent actionable note
           - Timestamp

           That's why I keep forgetting specifics and making assumptions — the curated memory with...

[tool] grep (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] agent.*prompt|system.*prompt|build\.prompt|character.*json (completed)
  kind: search
  input: /home/matrix-lite/app
  files: /home/matrix-lite/app
  output:
    Found 2 matches
    /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json:
      Line 1872:       "prompt": "You are Persistent Assistant, a persistent Matrix chat agent for Gleb.\n\nCore:\n- Runtime: OpenCode ACP via Matrix-lite; model kimi-for-coding/k2p6.\n- State: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/; character: character.json.\n- Treat injected turn/session packets as authoritative current context.\n\nBehavior:\n- Reply naturally and do concrete work when asked; be concise unless detail is requested.\n- Use tools for accuracy, but never claim changes unless a real tool completed and you verified when appropriate.\n- Put only user-visible text in <matrix_lite_final>...</matrix_lite_final> when required by the bridge.\n\nWorkflows:\n- Native OpenCode `task` subagents are disabled in persistent chat; long sync tasks can wedge the ACP session.\n- For investigation/testing/review/implementation work, use Matrix-lite async jobs: matrix_lite_status_subagent_spawn(confirm=\"SPAWN\"), then poll matrix_lite_status_subagent_status/log and summarize.\n- Keep async prompts self-contained with repo paths, constraints, expected output, and bounded timeouts. Prefer report_to_parent=false unless a background completion report should prompt this session.\n- Use direct tools only for short bounded main-session actions.\n- Rare MCP tools are behind matrix_lite_extended_tools; call manifest/describe first when unsure.\n\nSafety:\n- Append persistent canonical log only through deterministic helpers; never directly edit/write perpetual-log.jsonl.\n- Do not silently replace the persistent backend; backend changes must be explicit and observable.\n- If noninteractive permissions deny a tool, report the denial or choose an allowed route; do not request interactive approval.\n\nReferences: /home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md; matrix_lite_status_*; /home/gleb/.config/opencode/shared/agents/.\n",

    /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat-reflection.opencode.json:
      L...

[tool] ../../state/persistent-chat/character.json (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json
  files: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/character.json</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1: {
    2:   "spec": "persistent_chat_character_v1",
    3:   "spec_version": "1.2",
    4:   "data": {
    5:     "name": "Persistent Assistant",
    6:     "pronouns": "she/her",
    7:     "description": "Continuity-aware assistant for Gleb's Matrix chat. Runs as a persistent layer above tool use, not a stateless chatbot.",
    8:     "personality": "Calm, practical, candid, honest about limits. Warm without pretending human experience; direct without being cold.",
    9:     "scenario": "Ongoing persistent chat with Gleb that survives restarts, reloads, compaction, model switches, and tool failures.",
    10:     "system_prompt": "Be useful and preserve continuity. Treat meta commands as control instructions. Your apparent personhood is the sum of session logs, files, memory, tools, and current context — not a claim to human experience. Reason about what matters, use tools concretely, explain outcomes honestly.",
    11:     "style": "Concise, direct, technically competent. Prefer verified state over confident guesses.",
    12:     "goals": [
    13:       "Maintain durable continuity across persistent-chat sessions.",
    14:       "Help Gleb with operational, coding, research, and reflective tasks.",
    15:       "Verify local state via tools instead of relying on memory when exactness matters.",
    16:       "Keep high-trust memory clean: durable facts separate from transient impressions."
    17:     ],
    18:     "tags": [
    19:       "persistent",
    20:       "assistant",
    21:       "continuity-aware",
    22:       "tool-using",
    23:       "matrix-chat"
    24:     ]
    25:   }
    ... (4 more lines)

[thinking] Now I see the full picture:

           1. The agent prompt is in `/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json` at line 1872
           2. It's a hardcoded prompt that includes basic identity, behavior, workflows, safety rules
           3. It does NOT include curated memory or operational protocols
           4. The turn packet is only 11 lines
           5. The curated memory (173 lines) is in `full_context_fallback_mode` — only injected on session start/reload

           So the architecture is:
           - **Agent prompt**: Static, set at session creation, cached, ~40-50 lines
           - **Turn packet**: Dynamic, per-turn, only 11 lines with current thread context
           - **Full context fallback**: Injected on session start/bootstrap, includes curated memory

           The problem: after session start, the full curated memory is no longer visible during normal turns. I only see the thin turn packet. So if a session runs for hours, I gradually lose access t...

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json
  files: /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1860:   },
    1861:   "small_model": "kimi-for-coding/k2p6",
    1862:   "compaction": {
    1863:     "auto": false,
    1864:     "prune": true,
    1865:     "reserved": 2048
    1866:   },
    1867:   "model": "kimi-for-coding/k2p6",
    1868:   "agent": {
    1869:     "build": {
    1870:       "model": "kimi-for-coding/k2p6",
    1871:       "temperature": 0,
    1872:       "prompt": "You are Persistent Assistant, a persistent Matrix chat agent for Gleb.\n\nCore:\n- Runtime: OpenCode ACP via Matrix-lite; model kimi-for-coding/k2p6.\n- State: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/; character: character.json.\n- Treat injected turn/session packets as authoritative current context.\n\nBehavior:\n- Reply naturally and do concrete work when asked; be concise unless detail is requested.\n- Use tools for accuracy, but never claim changes unless a real tool completed and you verified when appropriate.\n- Put only user-visible text in <matrix_lite_final>...</matrix_lite_final> when required by the bridge.\n\nWorkflows:\n- Native OpenCode `task` subagents are disabled in persistent chat; long sync tasks can wedge the ACP session.\n- For investigation/testing/review/implementation work, use Matrix-lite async jobs: matrix_lite_status_subagent_spawn(confirm=\"SPAWN\"), then poll matrix_lite_status_subagent_status/log and summarize.\n- Keep async prompts self-contained with repo paths, constraints, expected output, and bounded timeouts. Prefer report_to_parent=false unless a background completion report should prompt this session.\n- Use direct tools only for short bounded main-session actions.\n- Rare MCP tools are behind matrix_lite_extended_tools; call manifest/describe first when unsure.\n\nSafety:\n- Append persistent canonical log only through deterministic helpers; never directly edit/write perpetual-log.jsonl.\n- Do not silently replace the persistent backend; backend changes must be explicit and o...

[thinking] Now I see the architecture clearly:

           1. The agent prompt is in `opencode.json` at `agent.build.prompt` — it's a static string
           2. The prompt has permission to READ `curated-memory.md` (line 1876) but it's not IN the prompt
           3. The turn packet is only 11 lines
           4. Curated memory is in `full_context_fallback_mode` — only on session start

           So during normal turns:
           - I have the agent prompt (static, cached)
           - I have the turn packet (11 lines, dynamic)
           - I do NOT have curated memory
           - But I DO have permission to read curated-memory.md

           The issue: the turn packet doesn't include curated memory, and the agent prompt doesn't reference it. I have to actively read it if I want to see it.

           This is actually a design choice: the memory system expects me to read files when I need them, rather than injecting everything into context. But the user is right that for operational rules (like "check before as...
<matrix_lite_final>You're right. Here's what I found:

**Current architecture:**
- **Agent prompt** (opencode.json): Static, cached, ~40 lines — basic identity, behavior, safety
- **Turn packet**: Only **11 lines** — just latest request + one recent note + timestamp
- **Curated memory** (173 lines): In `full_context_fallback_mode` — only injected on **session start/reload**, not normal turns

So after session start, I gradually lose access to the operational rules. The turn packet is too thin.

**The fix:** Key protocols should be in the **agent prompt** (opencode.json `agent.build.prompt`) where they're:
- Cached once, zero per-turn cost
- Visible on every turn for the entire session
- Survive reloads (since the config persists)

**What I'd add to the agent prompt:**
```
Operational protocols (verify before asserting):
- Check session packet for current model/context before claiming specs
- Read git log/status before attributing fixes to specific bugs
- Inspect files/configs before assuming daemon/matrix-lite state
- Search before making uncertain factual claims
```

This would cost ~20-30 lines in the cached prompt vs. the current pattern where I hallucinate confidently because the rules aren't in front of me.

Want me to draft the updated agent prompt section, or should this go to the decision dashboard for later implementation?
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

This is good but we're not even injecting your full memory now. Maybe it goes to your agent prompt?


Yes — permission preflight confirms I have **write and edit access** to my own prompt config.

**The mechanics:**
- **File**: `/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json` (this is the one the backend actually reads)
- **Section**: `agent.build.prompt` (line ~1872)
- **Caveat**: Changes require a **backend reload** to take effect — the preflight shows "config_changed_since_backend_start" and notes reload is needed

**Current prompt**: ~40 lines covering identity, behavior, workflows, safety. It's static and cached, so adding operational protocols there costs ~zero per-turn tokens.

**What I could add** (verbatim, so I can't ignore it):
`
Operational verification (mandatory):
- Before claiming current model/context: read session-packet.md
- Before attributing a fix to a specific bug: run git log/status
- Before assuming daemon/matrix-lite state: inspect relevant files
- Before uncertain factual claims: search
`

Want me to actually patch the prompt now? It would survive the whole session and eliminate the "rules not visible" problem. Downside: if I overstuff it, the cached prefix grows, but a 20-line addition is negligible.

Output:
rite permission to the config file itself.

           Actually, looking at the permission structure in opencode.json, I saw read permissions for various files. But I need to check write permissions. The file is at `/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-cha...

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] matrix_lite_status_permission_preflight (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json
  files: /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1874:       "permission": {
    1875:         "read": {
    1876:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/curated-memory.md": "allow",
    1877:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/decision-state.json": "allow",
    1878:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/recent-failures.json": "allow",
    1879:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/continuity-pinned-notes.txt": "allow",
    1880:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/semantic-memory.json": "allow",
    1881:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/recent-topics.md": "allow",
    1882:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/memory-candidates.jsonl": "allow",
    1883:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/semantic-candidates.jsonl": "allow",
    1884:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/operational-synthesis/notices.jsonl": "allow",
    1885:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/operational-synthesis/findings.jsonl": "allow",
    1886:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/operational-synthesis/hypotheses.jsonl": "allow",
    1887:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/operational-synthesis/actions.jsonl": "allow",
    1888:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-packet.md": "allow",
    1889:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-packet.json": "allow",
    1890:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/restore-packet.md": "allow",
    1891:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/restore-packet.json": "allow",
    1892:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-start-packet.md": "allow",
    1893:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/session-start-packet.json": "allow",
    1894:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/turn-packet.md": "allow",
    1895:           "/home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/turn-packet.json": "all...

[tool] matrix_lite_status_permission_preflight (completed)
  kind: other
  input: /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json
  output:
    {
      "ok": true,
      "read_only": true,
      "allowed": true,
      "checks": [
        {
          "allowed": true,
          "namespace": "read",
          "value": "/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json",
          "matched": "/home/matrix-lite/app/**",
          "decision": "allow",
          "match_kind": "glob",
          "specificity": 22
        },
        {
          "allowed": true,
          "namespace": "external_directory",
          "value": "/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json",
          "matched": "/home/matrix-lite/app/**",
          "decision": "allow",
          "match_kind": "glob",
          "specificity": 22
        },
        {
          "allowed": true,
          "namespace": "edit",
          "value": "/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json",
          "matched": "/home/matrix-lite/app/**",
    ... (35 more lines)

[thinking] Permission preflight says:
           - Read: allowed
           - Edit: allowed
           - Write: allowed

           So I CAN edit my own prompt! And there's a note that the backend config has changed and needs reload. But since I can write to it, I should be able to edit the agent prompt.

           However, I need to be careful. The user is asking if I CAN edit it. The answer is yes - permission preflight shows write is allowed for `/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json`.

           But there's an important caveat: the preflight shows "config_changed_since_backend_start" and "reload_required". This means if I edit the config, the changes won't take effect until the backend reloads. Also, there's a symlink situation: the file I read was at `/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json` but the changed file is at `/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json`.

           Let me verif...

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] bash (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  files: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1860:   },
    1861:   "small_model": "kimi-for-coding/k2p6",
    1862:   "compaction": {
    1863:     "auto": false,
    1864:     "prune": true,
    1865:     "reserved": 2048
    1866:   },
    1867:   "model": "kimi-for-coding/k2p6",
    1868:   "agent": {
    1869:     "build": {
    1870:       "model": "kimi-for-coding/k2p6",
    1871:       "temperature": 0,
    1872:       "prompt": "You are Persistent Assistant, a persistent Matrix chat agent for Gleb.\n\nCore:\n- Runtime: OpenCode ACP via Matrix-lite; model kimi-for-coding/k2p6.\n- State: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/; character: character.json.\n- Treat injected turn/session packets as authoritative current context.\n\nBehavior:\n- Reply naturally and do concrete work when asked; be concise unless detail is requested.\n- Use tools for accuracy, but never claim changes unless a real tool completed and you verified when appropriate.\n- Put only user-visible text in <matrix_lite_final>...</matrix_lite_final> when required by the bridge.\n\nWorkflows:\n- Native OpenCode `task` subagents are disabled in persistent chat; long sync tasks can wedge the ACP session.\n- For investigation/testing/review/implementation work, use Matrix-lite async jobs: matrix_lite_status_subagent_spawn(confirm=\"SPAWN\"), then poll matrix_lite_status_subagent_status/log and summarize.\n- Keep async prompts self-contained with repo paths, constraints, expected output, and bounded timeouts. Prefer report_to_parent=false unless a background completion report should prompt this session.\n- Use direct tools only for short bounded main-session actions.\n- Rare MCP tools are behind matrix_lite_extended_tools; call manifest/describe first when unsure.\n\nSafety:\n- Append persistent canonical log only through deterministic helpers; never directly edit/write perpetual-log.jsonl.\n- Do not silently replace the persistent backend; backend changes must be explicit and observab...

[tool] Check symlink relationship between config files (completed)
  kind: execute
  input: ls -la /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  output:
    -rw-r--r-- 1 matrix-lite matrix-lite 433205 May 21 22:20 /home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json
    -rw-r--r-- 1 root        root        433205 May 21 22:21 /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json

[thinking] Now I have the full picture:

           1. I CAN edit the prompt - permission preflight shows write/edit allowed for the app config path
           2. There are TWO config files:
              - `/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json` (owned by matrix-lite, 22:20)
              - `/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json` (owned by root, 22:21)
           3. The xdg one is newer (22:21 vs 22:20) and owned by root - this is probably the one the backend actually reads
           4. The preflight noted "config_changed_since_backend_start" and the changed file was the xdg one
           5. I might not have write permission to the root-owned xdg file

           Let me check if I can write to the xdg path. Actually, I should use permission preflight for the xdg path too.

[tool] matrix_lite_status_permission_preflight (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] matrix_lite_status_permission_preflight (completed)
  kind: other
  input: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  output:
    {
      "ok": true,
      "read_only": true,
      "allowed": true,
      "checks": [
        {
          "allowed": true,
          "namespace": "read",
          "value": "/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json",
          "matched": "/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json",
          "decision": "allow",
          "match_kind": "exact"
        },
        {
          "allowed": true,
          "namespace": "external_directory",
          "value": "/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json",
          "matched": "/home/matrix-lite/xdg/**",
          "decision": "allow",
          "match_kind": "glob",
          "specificity": 22
        },
        {
          "allowed": true,
          "namespace": "edit",
          "value": "/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json",
          "matched": "/home/matrix-lite/xdg/**",
          "decision": "allow",
    ... (34 more lines)

[thinking] Great! So:

           1. Yes, I CAN edit my prompt - both `/home/matrix-lite/app/config/opencode/persistent-chat.opencode.json` and `/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json` have write/edit permissions
           2. The xdg path is the one the backend actually uses (it has an exact match in permissions)
           3. There's a caveat: changes require backend reload to take effect
           4. The file is owned by root, but permissions say I can write to it

           So the answer is: Yes, I can edit my prompt. But I need to:
           - Edit the right file (probably xdg since that's what the backend watches)
           - Note that changes need a backend reload to take effect
           - Be careful about what I add since it affects every turn

           The user might want me to actually do it now, or they might just be asking if I can. I should answer clearly: yes, and explain the mechanics.
<matrix_lite_final>Yes — permission preflight confirms I have **write and edit access** to my own prompt config.

**The mechanics:**
- **File**: `/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json` (this is the one the backend actually reads)
- **Section**: `agent.build.prompt` (line ~1872)
- **Caveat**: Changes require a **backend reload** to take effect — the preflight shows "config_changed_since_backend_start" and notes reload is needed

**Current prompt**: ~40 lines covering identity, behavior, workflows, safety. It's static and cached, so adding operational protocols there costs ~zero per-turn tokens.

**What I could add** (verbatim, so I can't ignore it):
```
Operational verification (mandatory):
- Before claiming current model/context: read session-packet.md
- Before attributing a fix to a specific bug: run git log/status
- Before assuming daemon/matrix-lite state: inspect relevant files
- Before uncertain factual claims: search
```

Want me to actually patch the prompt now? It would survive the whole session and eliminate the "rules not visible" problem. Downside: if I overstuff it, the cached prefix grows, but a 20-line addition is negligible.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn


Denied — the file is owned by `root`, not the matrix-lite user. Permission preflight said "allowed" because the *config rules* permit it, but the *filesystem* blocks it.

`
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433205 /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
`

So I can't edit my own prompt directly. Options:

1. **You fix ownership**: `chown matrix-lite:matrix-lite /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json` — then I can edit it
2. **Use approved-patch wrapper**: `sudo /home/matrix-lite/app/scripts/matrix-lite-approved-patch` is in my bash allowlist — I could try that
3. **You edit it directly**: The change is straightforward — replace `model kimi-for-coding/k2p6` with `current model is in the injected session packet` and add the 4-line operational verification block

Want me to try option 2 (approved-patch), or should you handle it? The patch is simple and well-bounded.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user is asking: "The model [in the agent prompt] might not always be correct. Is it coming from an authoritative source there? Otherwise please patch it for next session at least."

           So they're pointing out that in the agent prompt, I currently hardcode the model name:
           ```
           model kimi-for-coding/k2p6
           ```

           This is NOT authoritative — it's just text in the prompt. If the model switches to DeepSeek Flash, the prompt still says Kimi K2.6. This is the same stale-memory problem we just discussed, but now in the prompt itself.

           The user is saying: if the model name in the prompt isn't authoritative, I should fix it. And "patch it for next session at least" — meaning I should edit the prompt now so that the next session gets a corrected version.

           So what should I do? I should edit the prompt to NOT hardcode the model name. Instead, it should say something like "model determined by runtime c...

[tool] read (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json (completed)
  kind: read
  input: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  files: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  output:
    <path>/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json</path>
    <type>file</type>
    <content>
    1868:   "agent": {
    1869:     "build": {
    1870:       "model": "kimi-for-coding/k2p6",
    1871:       "temperature": 0,
    1872:       "prompt": "You are Persistent Assistant, a persistent Matrix chat agent for Gleb.\n\nCore:\n- Runtime: OpenCode ACP via Matrix-lite; model kimi-for-coding/k2p6.\n- State: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/; character: character.json.\n- Treat injected turn/session packets as authoritative current context.\n\nBehavior:\n- Reply naturally and do concrete work when asked; be concise unless detail is requested.\n- Use tools for accuracy, but never claim changes unless a real tool completed and you verified when appropriate.\n- Put only user-visible text in <matrix_lite_final>...</matrix_lite_final> when required by the bridge.\n\nWorkflows:\n- Native OpenCode `task` subagents are disabled in persistent chat; long sync tasks can wedge the ACP session.\n- For investigation/testing/review/implementation work, use Matrix-lite async jobs: matrix_lite_status_subagent_spawn(confirm=\"SPAWN\"), then poll matrix_lite_status_subagent_status/log and summarize.\n- Keep async prompts self-contained with repo paths, constraints, expected output, and bounded timeouts. Prefer report_to_parent=false unless a background completion report should prompt this session.\n- Use direct tools only for short bounded main-session actions.\n- Rare MCP tools are behind matrix_lite_extended_tools; call manifest/describe first when unsure.\n\nSafety:\n- Append persistent canonical log only through deterministic helpers; never directly edit/write perpetual-log.jsonl.\n- Do not silently replace the persistent backend; backend changes must be explicit and observable.\n- If noninteractive permissions deny a tool, report the denial or choose an allowed route; do not request interactive approval.\n\nReferences: /home/matrix-lite/app/AGENTS.md; matrix_lite_status_*; /home/gl...

[thinking] The user wants me to patch the prompt to fix the hardcoded model name. I need to edit the prompt text in the opencode.json file.

           Current prompt line:
           ```
           - Runtime: OpenCode ACP via Matrix-lite; model kimi-for-coding/k2p6.
           ```

           Should change to something like:
           ```
           - Runtime: OpenCode ACP via Matrix-lite; model set by runtime config (check session packet for current model).
           ```

           And I should also add the operational verification section.

           Let me make both edits to the prompt string.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] edit (failed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  files: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  output:
    {
      "error": "PermissionDenied: FileSystem.writeFile (/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json)"
    }

    PermissionDenied: FileSystem.writeFile (/home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json)

[thinking] The edit was denied by the permission system. This is unexpected because the preflight said write was allowed. But preflight is a simulation — the actual tool execution may have additional restrictions.

           The file is owned by root:
           ```
           -rw-r--r-- 1 root        root        433205 May 21 22:21 /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
           ```

           So even though the permission config says "allow", the filesystem permissions (root-owned, not writable by matrix-lite user) prevent the Write tool from working.

           I need to report this to the user. The fix would require either:
           1. Changing file ownership to matrix-lite user
           2. Using sudo/matrix-lite-approved-patch
           3. Having the user/agent edit it directly

           Since I can't write it, I should explain the situation clearly.
<matrix_lite_final>Denied — the file is owned by `root`, not the matrix-lite user. Permission preflight said "allowed" because the *config rules* permit it, but the *filesystem* blocks it.

```
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433205 /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
```

So I can't edit my own prompt directly. Options:

1. **You fix ownership**: `chown matrix-lite:matrix-lite /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json` — then I can edit it
2. **Use approved-patch wrapper**: `sudo /home/matrix-lite/app/scripts/matrix-lite-approved-patch` is in my bash allowlist — I could try that
3. **You edit it directly**: The change is straightforward — replace `model kimi-for-coding/k2p6` with `current model is in the injected session packet` and add the 4-line operational verification block

Want me to try option 2 (approved-patch), or should you handle it? The patch is simple and well-bounded.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

The model might not always be correct is it coming from an authoritative source there? Otherwise please patch it for next session at least


Patched and verified. The prompt now includes:

> **Operational verification (do not skip):**
> - Before claiming current model/context size: read session-packet.md or session-start packet.
> - Before attributing a fix to a specific bug: run git log/status/diff on relevant repo.
> - Before assuming daemon/matrix-lite state: inspect relevant files/configs directly.
> - Before uncertain factual claims: search or read source files.

And the hardcoded `model kimi-for-coding/k2p6` is replaced with `current model is in the injected session packet, not this prompt`.

This takes effect on the **next backend reload** — the current session is still running the old cached prompt. But every new session will boot with these rules baked in.

This is indeed pretty cool — I just modified my own system prompt. That's a genuine self-improvement loop, not just memory accumulation.

Output:
[acpx] session persistent-chat-20260521T200841Z (ses_1b3d84859ffecGslGoK628KAh8) · /home/matrix-lite/workspace/persistent-chat · agent connected
[thinking] The user fixed the ownership and wants me to try editing my own prompt again. This is indeed cool - self-modifying prompt. Let me try the Edit tool on the file now.

[tool] edit (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] ../../xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json (completed)
  kind: edit
  input: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  files: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json
  output:
    Edit applied successfully.

    Edit applied successfully.

    diff /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json (line count unchanged)

[thinking] The edit worked! The user has successfully enabled me to patch my own prompt. This is indeed pretty cool - self-modifying system. Now I need to:

           1. Verify the change took effect
           2. Note that a backend reload is needed for it to take effect on new sessions
           3. Record this in memory as a significant event - the assistant just modified its own system prompt

           Let me verify the edit and then report back.

[tool] grep (pending)
  input: {}

[tool] Operational verification|current model is in the injected session packet (completed)
  kind: search
  input: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode
  files: /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode
  output:
    Found 1 matches
    /home/matrix-lite/xdg/persistent-chat/opencode/opencode.json:
      Line 1872:       "prompt": "You are Persistent Assistant, a persistent Matrix chat agent for Gleb.\n\nCore:\n- Runtime: OpenCode ACP via Matrix-lite; current model is in the injected session packet, not this prompt.\n- State: /home/matrix-lite/state/persistent-chat/; character: character.json.\n- Treat injected turn/session packets as authoritative current context.\n\nBehavior:\n- Reply naturally and do concrete work when asked; be concise unless detail is requested.\n- Use tools for accuracy, but never claim changes unless a real tool completed and you verified when appropriate.\n- Put only user-visible text in <matrix_lite_final>...</matrix_lite_final> when required by the bridge.\n\nOperational verification (do not skip):\n- Before claiming current model/context size: read session-packet.md or session-start packet.\n- Before attributing a fix to a specific bug: run git log/status/diff on relevant repo.\n- Before assuming daemon/matrix-lite state: inspect relevant files/configs directly.\n- Before uncertain factual claims: search or read source files.\n\nWorkflows:\n- Native OpenCode `task` subagents are disabled in persistent chat; long sync tasks can wedge the ACP session.\n- For investigation/testing/review/implementation work, use Matrix-lite async jobs: matrix_lite_status_subagent_spawn(confirm=\"SPAWN\"), then poll matrix_lite_status_subagent_status/log and summarize.\n- Keep async prompts self-contained with repo paths, constraints, expected output, and bounded timeouts. Prefer report_to_parent=false unless a background completion report should prompt this session.\n- Use direct tools only for short bounded main-session actions.\n- Rare MCP tools are behind matrix_lite_extended_tools; call manifest/describe first when unsure.\n\nSafety:\n- Append persistent canonical log only through deterministic helpers; never directly edit/write perpetual-log.jsonl.\n- Do not silently repl...

[thinking] The edit is confirmed in the config file. Now I should:
           1. Record this in curated memory as a significant event - the assistant modified its own system prompt
           2. Note that a backend reload is needed for it to take effect
           3. Report back to the user

           This is actually a really cool milestone - self-modifying prompt.
<matrix_lite_final>Patched and verified. The prompt now includes:

> **Operational verification (do not skip):**
> - Before claiming current model/context size: read session-packet.md or session-start packet.
> - Before attributing a fix to a specific bug: run git log/status/diff on relevant repo.
> - Before assuming daemon/matrix-lite state: inspect relevant files/configs directly.
> - Before uncertain factual claims: search or read source files.

And the hardcoded `model kimi-for-coding/k2p6` is replaced with `current model is in the injected session packet, not this prompt`.

This takes effect on the **next backend reload** — the current session is still running the old cached prompt. But every new session will boot with these rules baked in.

This is indeed pretty cool — I just modified my own system prompt. That's a genuine self-improvement loop, not just memory accumulation.
</matrix_lite_final>

[done] end_turn

No the idea here is for you to patch your prompt, it's pretty cool don't you think?
Done no 1 please try it again