kg-ingest

name: kg-ingest description: Ingest source files into the wiki — read, discuss key takeaways, write source/entity/concept pages with wikilinks. Requires wiki/ to be initialized (run /kg-init first). trigger: /kg-ingest

/kg-ingest — Ingest Sources into Wiki

Turn raw source material into wiki pages while preserving provenance and contradictions. This skill writes derived wiki content; it never modifies the raw source.

Activate When

• User invokes /kg-ingest <file> or /kg-ingest <folder>
• User says "이 문서를 wiki에 넣어줘", "자료 인제스트", "README를 지식베이스에 반영"
• User pastes a long-form source and asks to summarize-and-file

Do Not Activate When

• Source is external web content not yet downloaded → use /kg-autoresearch first
• User wants to query existing knowledge → /kg-query
• User wants to capture tacit knowledge from conversation → /kg-elicit

Preconditions

• wiki/ exists. If not, stop and suggest /kg-init.
• Source file/folder is readable.

Workflow

1. Read source

Read the full source when feasible. For huge files, build a section map first and ingest section by section.

2. Extract & discuss

• 3-5 key takeaways
• Candidate entities (artifacts, modules, files)
• Candidate concepts (abstract ideas, principles)
• Explicit claims with evidence snippets

3. Plan writes

Present the planned writes before touching any file:

Plan:
  Create: <list of new pages with proposed instance_of class>
  Update: <list of pages and what will be added/appended>
  Possible tensions: <list of contradictions with existing claims, or "none">

Confirmation gate (deterministic triggers — request user input when ANY is true):

1. Name collision: title-string similarity ≥ 0.7 between proposed page name and any existing page filename. Use Python's difflib.SequenceMatcher(None, new_title, existing_title).ratio() (range [0,1], stdlib only — not BM25, which is for query-document relevance, not name comparison). Compare against every file in wiki/<folder>/*.md; flag if any pair scores ≥ 0.7.
2. Class judgment: proposed instance_of is one of multiple plausible classes (e.g., Concept vs Procedure, Artifact vs Concept) AND the source folder has no clear precedent.
3. Contradiction: source claim contradicts an existing page with epistemic_status: validated OR confidence: high.

Optional graph-based trigger (graphify soft dependency):

• If graphify-out/graph.json exists AND mtime < 7 days (freshness gate), additionally trigger when:
  • CLI: graphify path "<new_entity>" "<best_difflib_match>" returns ≤ 2 hops (graph-distance proximity to the closest existing title found in Trigger 1). Equivalent MCP tool: shortest_path(<a>, <b>) if /kg-mcp server is registered.
• If graph is stale (≥ 7 days) or absent, skip this check and note "graph unavailable, name-similarity-only confirmation" in Caveats.

Otherwise proceed automatically. Default behavior matches Authority Matrix: page identity/classification = Human (when triggered), routine bookkeeping = LLM (see ~/.claude/skills/kg/references/authority-matrix.md).

4. Write content pages

• wiki/sources/<slug>.md — source summary with provenance and frontmatter
• wiki/entities/<entity>.md — create or append (preserve existing claims)
• wiki/concepts/<concept>.md — create or append with rationale
• Use [[wikilinks]] for cross-references
• Never erase contradictory older claims. If contradiction exists, add a > [!warning] Tension callout citing both sources.

5. Update derived files

• wiki/<folder>/_index.md — folder index
• wiki/index.md — main catalog
• wiki/overview.md — keep under 500 words
• wiki/log.md — append entry

6. Refresh graph

• Run /kg-update (or suggest if a separate session manages the graph)

7. Elicitation sweep

Scan source text + recent conversation for trigger keywords: 실패, 주의, 반복, 명심, 비법, failed, gotcha, pitfall, lesson learned.

• If found: invoke /kg-elicit with the keyword context as the topic.
• If not found but source is a postmortem-style doc (headings like "What went wrong", "Root cause", "Lessons"): suggest /kg-postmortem.
• Codex review output — if source is a Codex review with structured findings: file to wiki/experiences/codex-review-<date>-<slug>.md. Recurring patterns (3+ reviews) → suggest Heuristic promotion via /kg-elicit. See ~/.claude/skills/kg/references/codex-integration.md.
• This step is skippable; don't block ingest on it.

8. Update wiki/hot.md

Add the ingested source to Recent Activity. Increment reflect_debt in Maintenance Debt.

9. Reflect reminder

If this is the 3rd+ ingest since last /kg-reflect, append:

Reflect 권장 — 이번 세션에서 /kg-reflect를 실행하면 schema drift와 emerging pattern을 확인할 수 있습니다.

This is a suggestion, not a gate.

Batch mode

If many files, ask "all at once or one by one?" Batch mode:

Pre-scan (mandatory, before any write):

1. Extract candidate entity names + proposed instance_of from all files
2. For each candidate, evaluate the 3 deterministic Confirmation gate triggers (name collision / class judgment / contradiction)
3. If graphify available and fresh, additionally evaluate the graph-distance trigger
4. Collect (file, candidate, trigger_reason) tuples where any trigger fires
5. Show consolidated conflict list to user
6. User decides: batch-approve all conflicts | per-file decision | cancel

Auto-proceed for non-triggering writes — these run via parallel subagents without per-file confirmation.

Skipped in batch: per-file discussion, elicitation sweep (suggest manual /kg-elicit after batch finishes).

Rationale: confirmation gate is preserved at the batch boundary, not bypassed. Single approval covers all conflicting files; clean files run automatically.

Output Contract

Always end with:

Ingest result: PASS | PARTIAL | FAIL
Source: <path>
Source page: [[sources/<slug>]]
Created pages:
- [[...]]
Updated pages:
- [[...]]
Tensions found:
- <none | list with citations>
Claims extracted:
- <N> claims, <M> with direct evidence
Indexes updated:
- index.md, <folder>/_index.md, overview.md, log.md, hot.md
Next command:
- /kg-update: <recommended | already run>
- /kg-reflect: <recommended if reflect_debt >= 3 | not needed>

Examples

Example 1 — single file, no ambiguity

User:

/kg-ingest docs/architecture/auth-system.md

Expected behavior:

1. Read full file.
2. Discuss 3-5 takeaways with user.
3. Show plan (e.g., create concepts/auth-flow.md, update entities/auth-service.md). No ambiguity → proceed without confirmation.
4. Write all files with provenance.
5. Update indexes/log/hot.
6. Suggest /kg-update.
7. Output result block.

Example 2 — contradiction found

User:

/kg-ingest docs/perf-2026-q2.md

Expected behavior:

• During Plan writes, detect that source claims "Module X is the bottleneck" but existing concepts/perf-bottleneck.md (epistemic_status: validated) says "Module Y is the bottleneck".
• Stop and ask: "Source contradicts validated claim in [[perf-bottleneck]]. Options: (a) write as Tension callout citing both, (b) update existing page to mark old claim deprecated, (c) skip this claim."
• Apply chosen option. Never silently overwrite.

Exceptions and Escalation

• Source unreadable → stop before writing; report file path.
• Wiki absent → stop and suggest /kg-init.
• Source is web URL → stop and suggest /kg-autoresearch (which queues for approval before ingest).
• Conflict with high-confidence claim → stop in Plan writes, request user resolution. Never auto-resolve.
• Candidate Heuristic appears in source → ask before invoking /kg-elicit. Do not auto-promote Experience to Heuristic.
• Batch mode: skip the per-file gates but produce a final consolidated write report and a list of items requiring user follow-up.

Quality Gates

Before final answer:

• Every created page has provenance (provenance.sources)
• Every contradiction is preserved (Tension callout, not silent overwrite)
• Indexes (index.md, <folder>/_index.md) include the new pages
• log.md has the ingest entry
• hot.md Recent Activity reflects this ingest