Gbrain idea-ingest
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/garrytan/gbrain
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/garrytan/gbrain "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/idea-ingest" ~/.claude/skills/garrytan-gbrain-idea-ingest && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
skills/idea-ingest/SKILL.mdsource content
Idea Ingest Skill
Filing rule: Read
before creating any new page.skills/_brain-filing-rules.md
Contract
This skill guarantees:
- Every ingested item has a brain page with genuine analysis (not just a summary)
- The author gets a people page (MANDATORY for anyone whose thinking is worth ingesting)
- Cross-links created bidirectionally (source ↔ author, source ↔ mentioned entities)
- Raw source preserved for provenance via
gbrain files upload-raw - Every fact has an inline
citation[Source: ...] - Filing follows primary subject rules (not format-based)
Iron Law: Back-Linking (MANDATORY)
Every mention of a person or company with a brain page MUST create a back-link. Format:
- **YYYY-MM-DD** | Referenced in [page title](path) — brief context
Phases
-
Fetch the content. Use appropriate tools for the content type (web fetch for articles, API for tweets, PDF reader for documents).
-
Upload raw source. Save the fetched content for provenance:
gbrain files upload-raw <file> --page <slug> -
Identify the author — MANDATORY people page. Anyone whose thinking is worth ingesting is worth tracking.
- Search brain for existing author page
- If no page → CREATE ONE with compiled truth + timeline format
- If page exists → update timeline with this new publication
- Cross-link both directions
-
Save to brain. File by PRIMARY SUBJECT (read
):skills/_brain-filing-rules.md- About a person →
people/ - About a company →
companies/ - A reusable framework →
concepts/ - Raw data dump →
sources/
- About a person →
-
Analyze for the user. Reply with analysis that connects the content to what the brain knows. Think about:
- Active projects — is this relevant?
- Contradictions — does this challenge existing brain knowledge?
- Connections — does this involve known people/companies?
- Don't just summarize. Tell the user things they wouldn't have noticed.
-
Sync.
to update the index.gbrain sync
Output Format
# {Title} — {Author} **Source:** {URL} **Author:** {Author}, {role} **Published:** {date} **Ingested:** {date} ## Context {Why this matters now, connected to brain knowledge} ## Summary {3-5 bullet core arguments} ## Key Data / Claims {Specific facts, numbers, quotes} ## Analysis {How this connects to existing brain knowledge. What's new. What contradicts.}
Anti-Patterns
- Just summarizing without connecting to brain knowledge
- Filing everything in
(sources is for raw data dumps only)sources/ - Skipping the author people page
- Not cross-linking to mentioned entities
- Ingesting without checking brain first for existing coverage