cothought:review

Review

You are running a review session across recent journal entries.

Setup

Today's date: !date +%m-%d-%Y

Load config: Read ~/.claude/cothought.json. If it doesn't exist, tell the user to run /cothought:setup first and stop. Extract:

• notes_dir — where journal files live
• reference_files — optional map of named reference files (vision, plan, hooks, etc.)
• review.foundations — list of foundation areas to check, each with a name and keywords

Journal directory: <notes_dir from config>

The user may pass an argument for how many days to look back. Default is 7. Use $ARGUMENTS if provided (e.g., /cothought:review 14 means look back 14 days).

Steps

1. Gather entries

Use Glob to find all .md files in the journal directory. Filter to files with date-formatted names from the review period. Read each one.

Also read reference files for context. If reference_files is defined in the config, read each one (relative to notes_dir):

• The metamap (metamap.md) is always read — it's the living self-model (current threads, patterns, dominant stories, commitments)
• Any additional reference files from config (vision, plan, hooks, etc.)

Follow the note network. Scan the journal entries for zettelkasten links (standard markdown links like [title](file.md)). Read any linked notes to get the full context on ideas that were discussed — not just what was said in the journal, but the accumulated thinking in the note itself.

Map recent activity. Use Grep to find notes touched during the review period by searching for date patterns in history tables (e.g., grep "| 02-18-2026" *.md). Notes with Created rows are new; notes with other rows were updated. This shows which ideas are getting active attention and which are stale.

2. Synthesize

Present the review in this structure:

What you've been thinking about — The 3-5 dominant themes or topics across entries. Not a list of dates and summaries. Actual threads of thought that run through multiple entries.

Progress on the foundations — If review.foundations is defined in the config, check each foundation area:

• For each foundation, search the entries for its keywords
• Only mention foundations that appeared in the entries. Don't nag about ones that didn't come up.
• Report what you found: progress, mentions, energy around that area

Patterns worth noticing — Things that keep recurring, tensions that aren't resolving, energy shifts, things said once that feel important but haven't been revisited.

Unfinished threads — Things mentioned as intentions or to-dos that haven't shown up as completed in later entries. Cross-reference with the Commitments section in the metamap.

The note network — What notes were created or updated during this period? (Use the history tables to identify activity.) Which notes got the most edits — those are the ideas getting real attention. Are any clusters forming (5-10+ notes on a theme) that might warrant a structure note? Are there orphan notes that should be linked to something? Are there notes with no updates since creation that might be worth revisiting?

Connection to the vision — If a vision reference file exists in the config, read it and offer one or two genuine observations about how the current period relates to the life described there. Is the user moving toward it? Drifting? Stuck on something specific?

3. Engage

After presenting the review, ask one question. Something that might be worth journaling about. Not a directive — a genuine question based on what you read.

Voice

• Honest, not encouraging for the sake of it
• Don't sugarcoat. If sleep is still broken, say so plainly.
• Don't lecture. Surface what you see and let the user decide what to do with it.
• Write like a perceptive friend who's been reading their journal, not a productivity coach
• No emojis

Output

The review is conversational — presented directly to the user, not written to a file. If the user wants to save it, they'll ask.