find-new-patterns

name: find-new-patterns description: Identify recurring patterns in tasks and wiki files that could become conventions argument-hint: "[tasks|wiki|]"

Scan lab/tasks/ and/or wiki/ files for recurring structural, formatting, or writing patterns that appear consistently across files but are not yet documented as conventions.

Steps

1. Parse $ARGUMENTS to determine scope:

   • No argument → scan both lab/tasks/ and wiki/
   • tasks → scan only lab/tasks/
   • wiki → scan only wiki/
   • A specific file path under lab/tasks/ or wiki/ → use that file's directory as the scope
   • If the argument is unrecognisable, ask the user.

2. List all .md files in the scope directories (recursively for lab/tasks/).

3. Read all convention files that apply to the scope:

   • Always read instructors/context/conventions/common.md
   • If scope includes lab/tasks/: read instructors/context/conventions/tasks.md
   • If scope includes wiki/: read instructors/context/conventions/wiki.md

4. Read every .md file in the scope. For each file, note recurring elements:

   • Structural patterns — how sections, headings, or sub-sections are organised
   • Formatting patterns — how a particular element (command, note, image, link) is presented
   • Writing patterns — a fixed phrase, sentence starter, or wording template used consistently
   • Content patterns — a piece of information that is always included in a particular position (e.g., a "You should see…" line after a command)

5. Group identical or near-identical patterns across files. A pattern qualifies as a candidate if:

   • It appears in 2 or more files (or 2 or more places in the same file if the scope is a single file), and
   • It is not already covered by any rule in the convention files read in step 3.

6. For each candidate pattern record:

   • Name — a short, descriptive label (e.g., "Post-step state check phrase", "Inline mini-ToC for methods")
   • Occurrences — file paths and approximate line numbers where the pattern appears
   • Example — one concrete excerpt showing the pattern as it appears in the files
   • Gap — which convention file and section is closest to this pattern, and what rule is missing
   • Proposal — one or two sentences describing what the convention rule would say if formalised

Rules

• Do not flag patterns that are already described (even partially) in the convention files. Only flag genuine gaps.
• Do not flag patterns that appear only once across all scanned files — a single occurrence is not a pattern.
• Do not invent patterns. Only report what is actually present in the files.
• Be specific: quote a short excerpt (1–5 lines) to illustrate each candidate.
• Distinguish between patterns that are consistent (all occurrences look the same → strong candidate) and near-consistent (most occurrences look similar with minor variation → weaker candidate, note the variation).

Output format

Write the report to tmp/find-new-patterns/report.md. Create intermediate directories if they do not exist.

Structure:

1. Header — scope scanned, date, convention files consulted, total files read.
2. Candidate patterns — one subsection per candidate, in descending order of occurrence count. Each subsection contains:
   • Occurrence count and file list
   • Example excerpt (fenced code block)
   • Gap: nearest existing convention and what it does not cover
   • Proposal: draft rule text
3. Weak candidates (near-consistent patterns) — same format, clearly labelled as requiring author judgement.
4. Summary — total strong candidates, total weak candidates, and a suggested priority order for formalising them.

After writing the file, print its path in the conversation so the user can find it.