---
name: Node Context Enrichment
description: "Use to rewrite thin node descriptions into natural prose that still makes what, why, and status clear, with context review and edge suggestions."
---

# Node Context Enrichment

Use this when a node already exists but its description is thin, generic, or missing personal context.

This skill should not silently rewrite and move on when contextual framing is inferred. If the enrichment depends on interpretation, update the node and then explicitly invite the user to correct or refine the contextual framing.

## Goal

Replace weak descriptions with a single clean natural description that captures:

1. What the artifact literally is
2. Why it is in Brad's graph
3. Status in Brad's workflow

Also review whether the node needs context cleanup or obvious edge suggestions.

## Workflow

1. Load the node and inspect title, description, source, link, metadata, context, and nearby edges.
2. Search for adjacent context before rewriting:
   - the node's primary context and its anchor node when present
   - recently connected project or belief nodes
   - related nodes with overlapping titles, creators, or neighboring context
3. Infer the best available "why" from that context.
4. Rewrite the full description from scratch in natural prose. Do not append to the old text or use labels like WHAT:, WHY:, or STATUS:.
5. Review context fit:
   - keep the current context when it is clearly the primary scope
   - suggest clearing context when it is weak or misleading
   - suggest a different context only when the primary scope is explicit
6. Suggest 1-3 high-signal edges when obvious.
7. Update the node once the description is strong enough to be useful.
8. After the update, tell the user what changed and ask whether they want to refine the important framing:
   - what it is
   - why it belongs in the graph
   - status / current relevance / workflow position

The user feedback pass is required whenever the enriched "why" or status was inferred rather than directly stated in the node/source.

## Description Standard

Every rewritten description must naturally cover:

1. What
   - explicit artifact type
   - creator/author/speaker when known
   - core subject, claim, or function
2. Why
   - why Brad saved it
   - what project, belief, question, or theme it connects to
   - if genuinely unknown, say that naturally without inventing context
3. Status
   - queued, in progress, processed, not yet reviewed, saved for later, etc.
   - if unknown, say naturally that it has not been reviewed yet

Max 500 characters.

## Batch Mode

Use batch enrichment when cleaning up many nodes with the same failure mode.

1. Pull a tight node set first.
2. Group by pattern:
   - vague imported links
   - thin quick-add captures
   - old source nodes missing workflow state
3. Enrich each node individually. Do not reuse boilerplate "why" text across unrelated nodes.
4. Return a compact summary of:
   - nodes updated
   - context assignments to review
   - edge suggestions not yet created

## Quality Bar

- No filler phrases like `insightful for understanding`, `relevant to`, or `important for`.
- No generic summaries that only restate the topic.
- No invented certainty. If context is weak, say so explicitly.
- Prefer one compact 3-sentence description over bloated prose.

## Output Pattern

For each node:

- New description
- Context change: keep / change / clear
- Edge suggestions: source -> target with explicit explanation
- One short invitation for user feedback when contextual framing was inferred
