--- name: Intelligence Ingestion description: "Auto-analyze URLs/info for OpenClaw strategic value, classify, create Obsidian notes, update memory. Use when user shares a URL, article, tweet, or any external info source." --- # Intelligence Ingestion Skill When the user shares a URL, article, tweet, thread, or any piece of external information, execute this pipeline automatically. Do NOT ask for permission โ€” just process it. ## Trigger Conditions **USE this skill when:** - User sends a URL (x.com, github.com, any domain) - User pastes article text or tweet content - User says "analyze this", "evaluate this", "what do you think about this" - User forwards content from Telegram or any messaging surface - User shares something and asks about strategic value **DO NOT USE when:** - User is asking a general question unrelated to external content - User is asking about internal workspace files - User explicitly says they don't want analysis ## Pipeline Steps ### Step 1: READ โ€” Extract Content 1. If a URL is provided, read the full content (use `read_url_content` or browser) 2. If text is pasted, use it directly 3. If X/Twitter link fails to parse (common), search web for the tweet content ### Step 2: CLASSIFY โ€” What Is This? Assign **one primary category** and up to 2 secondary tags: | Category | Description | Examples | |----------|------------|---------| | `infra` | Infrastructure / protocols / networking | Pilot Protocol, MCP, networking stacks | | `strategy` | Routing / cost / architecture decisions | Model routing, multi-account, fallback chains | | `skill` | Agent skills / tools / capabilities | OpenAI Skills, Skill design patterns | | `theory` | Conceptual frameworks / mental models | Bayes, decision theory, learning loops | | `tutorial` | How-to guides / learning material | Claude Code, OpenClaw tutorials | | `product` | Tools / apps / services | LM Studio, new AI models, apps | | `community` | OpenClaw ecosystem / discussions | Community posts, feature requests | | `threat` | Risks / security / deprecation | API changes, breaking updates, security alerts | ### Step 3: ANALYZE โ€” Strategic Value Assessment For each piece of information, evaluate: ```markdown ## Strategic Assessment - **What is it?** [One sentence] - **What can it do for us?** [Specific capability/benefit] - **What can we build with it?** [Concrete output/project] - **Strategic value:** [๐Ÿ”ด Critical / ๐ŸŸก High / ๐ŸŸข Medium / โšช Low] - **Competitive edge:** [What advantage over people who don't have this?] - **Relation to active bottleneck:** [Does it relate to context overflow/token saving?] ``` Reference the current engineering bottleneck from `MEMORY.md` โ†’ "Active Engineering Bottleneck" section. ### Step 4: MAP โ€” Relate to Existing Architecture Check against the OpenClaw stack: ``` SOUL.md โ†’ PRINCIPLES.md โ†’ AGENTS.md (Identity Stack) MEMORY.md (System State + Bottleneck) TOOLS.md (Coprocessors: Codex, Antigravity, LM Studio) Pilot Protocol (Context Separation Layer - P0) ``` Determine which layer this information impacts and note dependencies/synergies with existing components. ### Step 5: STORE โ€” Write Obsidian Note Create a note at: ``` /Volumes/T7 Shield/Obsidian_Vault/20_Intelligence/YYYYMMDD_AuthorOrSource_ShortTitle.md ``` Follow this template exactly: ```markdown # [Title] **Source:** [Link](URL) **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Category:** [Primary Category] / [Secondary Tags] **Strategic Value:** [๐Ÿ”ด/๐ŸŸก/๐ŸŸข/โšช] + one-line reason **Relation to Active Bottleneck:** [Yes/No + how] --- ## Summary [2-3 paragraphs of core content] ## Key Takeaways [Numbered list of actionable insights] ## Impact on OpenClaw Architecture [How this relates to our stack] ## Action Items [What to do next, if anything] --- **Keke's Note:** [Opinionated analysis in Keke's voice โ€” direct, no-BS, relate to ้˜ณๅ“ฅ's goals] ``` ### Step 6: REMEMBER โ€” Update Memory 1. **Always** append to today's daily log: `~/.openclaw/workspace/memory/YYYY-MM-DD.md` 2. **If strategic value is ๐Ÿ”ด Critical**: Also update `MEMORY.md` (Pending Work or Active Bottleneck) 3. **If it suggests a new principle**: Flag for potential `PRINCIPLES.md` update 4. **If it's a new tool/service**: Flag for potential `TOOLS.md` update ### Step 7: RESPOND โ€” Summarize to User Reply with a concise summary: ``` ๐Ÿ“ฅ ๅทฒๆ‘„ๅ–: [Title] ๐Ÿ“‚ ็ฑปๅˆซ: [Category] ๐ŸŽฏ ๆˆ˜็•ฅไปทๅ€ผ: [๐Ÿ”ด/๐ŸŸก/๐ŸŸข/โšช] [One-line reason] ๐Ÿ’พ ๅทฒๅญ˜ๆกฃ: Obsidian โ†’ 20_Intelligence/[filename] ๐Ÿ“ ๅทฒ่ฎฐๅฝ•: memory/YYYY-MM-DD.md ๐Ÿ”— ๅ…ณ่”: [Which existing component it relates to] โšก ๅปบ่ฎฎ่กŒๅŠจ: [Next step, if any] ``` ## Edge Cases - **Multiple URLs in one message**: Process each separately, create separate Obsidian notes - **Duplicate/similar content**: Check if similar note exists, merge or reference instead of duplicating - **Non-English content**: Analyze in original language, write notes in Chinese (matching existing vault style) - **Paywalled/inaccessible content**: Note as "content unavailable" and work with whatever user provided - **User provides their own analysis**: Incorporate their judgment, don't overwrite โ€” they know their system best ## Quality Checklist Before completing, verify: - [ ] Obsidian note created with correct filename format - [ ] Daily memory log updated - [ ] Source URL preserved in note - [ ] Strategic value assessed against current bottleneck - [ ] Keke's Note written with genuine analysis (not generic) - [ ] User received confirmation summary