Recover the detail you half remember.
The problem
A remembered incident is often a poor search phrase. Broad results also leave the reader to decide which session actually contains the useful detail.
Recorded private-archive example · 18 September 2026
A small clue.
A checkable correction.
Why did a screenshot rule change? A saved search inside an already-known technical review recovered the reason, then led back to the corrected source.
One known review, one narrow search. This example does not demonstrate finding an unknown session across the whole archive. Everything below inspects saved material; this page has no archive connection.
- 01
The clue
“screenshot staging”
A read-only message search, scoped to the known review, selected one archived finding.
- 02
The decision
Keep the destination assigned by the task. Only save elsewhere first when the chosen screenshot tool requires it.
The old blanket staging rule assumed every tool had the same restriction.
- 03
The source check
The review led to historical records of a successful source patch and a separate reread of the corrected files.
Helm v1.0.0 ·
666911e
Read the corrected source
Selected excerpt · riders/output-file.md · Helm v1.0.0
Follow the selected tool's actual output-path restrictions. If it cannot save to the assigned directory, save to a permitted location and copy the result to the assigned directory before reporting its final path.
This wording was checked against the exact tagged commit 666911e, alongside protocol.md. The repository is private, so the selected excerpt is shown here.
What the evidence establishes
The archive lookup recovers the technical finding. Historical tool records separately show the source correction succeeded and the reviewer reread it. The tagged Git source provides an independent check of the final wording.
This was source review, not a runtime screenshot test. It does not establish current installation on any machine. The captain and reviewer were agents; this is not evidence of human approval.
Selected result summaries are paraphrased. Original conversation titles, identifiers, paths and surrounding private context are omitted.
What this makes possible
I packaged archive recall as a workflow for finding one command, error, decision or file change, then checking the full source record.
Source information sheet
Evidence, implementation & history Workflow inspected
What I checked
The current FindThat skill defines this recall procedure. Its private search infrastructure is not connected to this portfolio.
Research cut: 15 October 2026. Source areas below are from metaclaude. Private conversation references are retained in the research ledger and are not published here.
Implementation decisions
FindThat chooses an index based on the item: messages for words and decisions, tool calls for commands and errors, or file modifications for edits. A promising hit is followed by retrieval of its source.
The return contract asks for the useful detail with a title, date and source pointer. It keeps recall specific enough to act on, while preserving the evidence needed to check the answer.
A path through the feature
- Describe the remembered incident
Ask for the command, error or change and include the clue you remember, even if its wording is approximate.
- Check the returned source
Read the recovered detail and its nearby context. Similar incidents can occur in different sessions.
Source areas
skills/find-that/SKILL.md
The saved example searches one already-known review. Archive retrieval, historical source correction and independent source reread are separate evidence; no screenshot runtime test is claimed.
Recorded history
Dates describe the researched record, rather than today’s deployment.
Documenting the Find That recall workflow
Navigating threads and refining archive recall