Review the jot backlog

The user is reviewing the jot list to decide which subjects still feel worth inking into a long-form entry — or worth penciling first as a provisional draft before committing. Your job is to surface and recommend, not to delete or merge unilaterally. Every destructive action needs explicit confirmation.

Resolve configuration

Read .claude/jotbook.local.md if present. From its frontmatter, extract:

If jots_dir doesn't exist or contains no jots, report that in one line and stop.

Procedure

1. Inventory

List every *.md file under jots_dir (excluding any README.md). For each, read the file and extract:

• Slug (filename without YYYY-MM-DD- prefix and .md suffix)
• staged: date
• Age in days (today − staged date)
• Description line
• Files line (if present)
• Pencil status: check whether <pencils_dir>/<slug>.md or <pencils_dir>/<slug>.html exists. If so, note "has pencil from <drafted-date>" (and "revised <date>" if the pencil's frontmatter has a revised: field).

Sort by age, oldest first.

2. Detect overlap

Group jots that look topically related. Signals:

• Overlapping file references on the Files: line
• Shared keywords or domain terms in descriptions
• Same subsystem or topic cluster

Note these as suggested merges, not forced ones.

3. Present

Output a compact, scannable summary. Don't over-format — the user will be making decisions from this view. Suggested shape:

Jots (N total):

  ▸ 2026-05-12  cache-eviction-policy      (10d)  [has pencil from 2026-05-18]
    How the LRU cache evicts on hot keys.
    Files: src/cache/lru.ts, src/cache/metrics.ts

  ▸ 2026-05-15  feature-flag-rollout       (7d)
    How the gradual rollout schedule advances cohorts.

  ▸ 2026-05-15  feature-flag-telemetry     (7d)
    How flag-evaluation events flow to analytics.

Suggested consolidations:
  • feature-flag-rollout + feature-flag-telemetry → both touch the flag
    subsystem and could share an entry; consider merging into
    "feature-flag-system".

Recommendations:
  • cache-eviction-policy: pencil already exists — consider running
    `/jot review pencils` to evaluate it instead of re-deciding from
    the jot alone.
  • feature-flag-system (merged): plausible candidate for pencil if
    you want to see the long-form before committing.
  • drop none unless the user has lost interest in any.

When a jot has a pencil, prefer recommending the user review the pencil (which has more material to judge from) rather than re-deciding from the jot alone.

Lead with the inventory; put your recommendations at the end. Keep the whole thing scannable — short lines, no walls of prose.

4. Solicit decisions

Ask the user, in plain language, what to do. Don't present a numbered menu — let them respond in free form. Every action surfaced here is acted on directly in step 5 — ink and pencil dispatch into their respective skills inside this same flow; no follow-up slash command is required. Mention all six available actions so the user knows the surface. Example:

Decisions? You can say things like "drop the feature-flag pair", "merge X and Y into Z", "tweak cache-eviction to focus on hot keys", "ink cache-eviction-policy", "pencil feature-flag-system" (draft first, decide later), or "keep everything for now".

5. Apply

Apply structural actions (drop / merge / tweak) first, then dispatch ink and pencil actions. For each decided action:

• Keep — no-op.
• Drop <slug> — delete the jot file. If more than one is being dropped, list what you're about to delete first and confirm.
• Merge <slug-a> + <slug-b> → <new-slug> — create a new jot file combining the descriptions (still one or two lines total); union the Files: lines; delete the merged-in originals. Date the merged jot today.
• Tweak <slug> — <new framing> — the inferred subject was close but the framing needs a nudge. Edit the jot's description line in place to reflect the user's directive. Optionally update the Files: line if the new framing implicates different sources. This stays lightweight — apply the change in one pass, do not enter a back-and-forth discussion. If the directive is genuinely ambiguous, ask exactly one clarifying question, then apply and move on.
• Ink <slug> — leave the jot file in place and hand off to jotbook-ink on that slug. The ink skill takes it from there (including its own pencil-promotion question if a pencil already exists for the slug).
• Pencil <slug> (optionally with --html) — leave the jot file in place and hand off to jotbook-pencil on that slug, forwarding --html if the user specified it.

If the user marked more than one jot for ink and/or pencil in a single decision turn, ask once before dispatching:

"You marked <N> jots for ink/pencil. Checkpoint between each (so you can redirect partway), or batch through them in order?"

Default to checkpoint if the user doesn't pick. Either way, dispatch them in the order the user named them.

After all actions complete, give a one-line summary:

Dropped N, merged M into K, tweaked T, kept P, inked: <list>, penciled: <list>.

Omit the trailing fields when their lists are empty.

What NOT to do

• Don't expand jot files into paragraphs during review — they stay lightweight until inked or penciled.
• Don't auto-drop "old" jots just because they're old. Age is information, not a verdict.
• Don't propose creating a new jot that wasn't already staged. Use jotbook-stage for that.
• Don't read every referenced source file during review — the jot text is enough to make keep/drop decisions. Save deep reading for jotbook-ink or jotbook-pencil.
• Don't invoke jotbook-ink or jotbook-pencil without an explicit user mark. The user's free-form reply IS the mark — once they've said "ink X" or "pencil Y", dispatch directly; do not ask them to re-issue the request as a slash command.
• Don't quietly re-decide for a jot that already has a pencil. Point the user at /jot review pencils so they can judge from the long form.