feat: RSO observation system, child safety, Discord adapter, Telegram watchdog, email attachments

Core agent improvements: - RSO (Relevance Scoring & Observation) system: interaction_logger, memory_scorer, signal_detector - Memory access logging (memory_access_log table) for relevance scoring; high-signal turn detection - Rich conversation storage for notable turns; compact_conversation truncates long user messages - Task-type classifier (query/action/analysis/creative) for observation tagging - Nested sub-agent visibility: deep delegations now register against the main agent's manager Child safety (Gabriel profile): - child_safety.py: filtering, audit logging, prompt constants for restricted sessions - .kiro/specs/child-safety-profile: requirements, design, tasks specs - GABRIEL_BOT_PROPOSAL.md: initial proposal doc - Reduced context window (10 msgs) and tutor-mode identity for restricted users Telegram adapter: - Polling watchdog: auto-restarts updater if polling drops unexpectedly - get_me() with exponential-backoff retry on NetworkError at startup - Correct stop() ordering: signal watchdog before cancelling tasks Email / Gmail: - send_email: supports file attachments (attachments list param) - get_email: surfaces attachment metadata in response Scheduled tasks / weather: - Remove OpenWeatherMap API calls from morning-weather task; use wttr.in exclusively - New scheduled tasks and scheduler state persistence Discord: - adapters/discord/__init__.py scaffold - discord-plugin: MCP plugin for Claude Code Discord integration (server.ts, skills, config) Infrastructure: - n8n workflow exports (garvis_webhook, content_pipeline variants) - memory_workspace: context, homelab-repo-updates, weekly observation summaries, error logs - UCS C240 migration plan doc - requirements.txt: new deps - .claude/settings.json, fix_hooks.py: hook/permission tuning
2026-04-23 07:54:01 -06:00
parent 1232490c3b
commit 916f86725d
70 changed files with 10945 additions and 187 deletions
--- a/memory_workspace/UCS_C240_MIGRATION_PLAN.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/UCS_C240_MIGRATION_PLAN.md
@@ -0,0 +1,448 @@
+# Proxmox Migration Plan: Dell R620 → Cisco UCS C240 M5
+
+**Created:** 2026-03-14
+**Updated:** 2026-03-14
+**Status:** Pre-Migration — Backups Running, Awaiting C240 M5 Power-On
+**Strategy:** Option C — Wipe R620 Drives → Install in C240 → Restore from PBS
+
+---
+
+## 1. Current Environment Summary
+
+### Source Server: Dell PowerEdge R620
+
+| Component | Details |
+|-----------|---------|
+| **Proxmox VE** | Latest (verify version on next SSH) |
+| **RAID Controller** | LSI SAS1068E (Fusion MPT SAS) — **NOT a Dell PERC** |
+| **Boot Drive** | `/dev/sda` — 146 GB SAS (Seagate ST914603SSUN146G) — Proxmox OS on LVM |
+| **Data Pool** | ZFS "Vault" — 4.36 TB on `/dev/sdb` (RAID 0 virtual disk — 4x 1.2TB NETAPP drives) |
+| **Pool Usage** | 108 GB used / 4.25 TB free — HEALTHY, 0 errors |
+| **Last Scrub** | Mar 8, 2026 — clean |
+
+### ⚠️ RAID 0 Warning
+The "Vault" ZFS pool sits on a **RAID 0 stripe** (4 drives, no redundancy). If any single drive fails, all data is lost. This is another strong reason to get fresh backups before touching anything.
+
+### Physical Drive Inventory — R620 (6 Drives)
+
+| Slot | Vendor | Model | Capacity | RPM | Interface | Serial | Current Use |
+|------|--------|-------|----------|-----|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| 0 | SEAGATE | ST914602SSUN146G | 146 GB | 10,025 | 2.5" SAS | 2896MNAS | **Unused** (no block device assigned) |
+| 1 | SEAGATE | ST914603SSUN146G | 146 GB | 10,000 | 2.5" SAS | 00110282EXXH | **sda** — Proxmox boot (LVM) |
+| 2 | NETAPP | X425_SIRMN1T2A10 | 1.20 TB | 10,500 | 2.5" SAS | S3L1GAHC | **sdb** — RAID 0 member → ZFS "Vault" |
+| 3 | NETAPP | X425_SIRMN1T2A10 | 1.20 TB | 10,500 | 2.5" SAS | S3L1TPXN | **sdb** — RAID 0 member → ZFS "Vault" |
+| 4 | NETAPP | X425_SIRMN1T2A10 | 1.20 TB | 10,500 | 2.5" SAS | S3L1YV7T | **sdb** — RAID 0 member → ZFS "Vault" |
+| 5 | NETAPP | X425_SIRMN1T2A10 | 1.20 TB | 10,500 | 2.5" SAS | S3L1TTA2 | **sdb** — RAID 0 member → ZFS "Vault" |
+
+**Note:** NETAPP X425 drives are Seagate-manufactured 1.2TB 10K SAS drives (rebranded for NetApp storage shelves).
+
+### Workloads (12 total — 6 running, 6 stopped)
+
+| VMID | Name | Type | Status | RAM | Disk | Priority |
+|------|------|------|--------|-----|------|----------|
+| 100 | docker-hub | VM | 🟢 Running | 8.2 GB | 100 GB | HIGH |
+| 101 | monitoring-docker | VM | 🟢 Running | 8 GB | 50 GB | HIGH |
+| 102 | CML | VM | 🟢 Running | 32 GB | 200 GB | HIGH |
+| 105 | pfSense-Firewall | VM | 🟢 Running | 2 GB | 16 GB | CRITICAL |
+| 114 | haos | VM | 🟢 Running | 4 GB | 50 GB | HIGH |
+| 109 | caddy | LXC | 🟢 Running | — | — | HIGH |
+| 112 | twingate-connector | LXC | 🟢 Running | — | — | HIGH |
+| 104 | ubuntu-dev | VM | ⚫ Stopped | 5 GB | 32 GB | LOW |
+| 106 | Ansible-Control | VM | ⚫ Stopped | 4 GB | 32 GB | LOW |
+| 107 | ubuntu-docker | VM | ⚫ Stopped | 4 GB | 50 GB | LOW |
+| 113 | n8n | LXC | ⚫ Stopped | — | — | LOW |
+| 117 | test-cve-database | LXC | ⚫ Stopped | — | — | LOW |
+
+### Backup Server
+| Component | Details |
+|-----------|---------|
+| **PBS Host** | 192.168.2.151 (container on TrueNAS 192.168.2.150) |
+| **Storage** | `PBS-Backups` — 292 GB used / 962 GB total |
+| **Status** | ✅ Online (restored 2026-03-14 — fixed macvtap collision) |
+| **Fresh Backups** | 🔄 Running as of 2026-03-14 |
+
+---
+
+## 2. Target Server: Cisco UCS C240 M5
+
+### Known Specs
+| Component | Details |
+|-----------|---------|
+| **Chassis** | Cisco UCS C240 M5 (2U rack) |
+| **New Drives** | 2x 960 GB (SSD — likely SATA or SAS, verify on power-on) |
+| **Reused Drives** | 6x drives from R620 (2x 146GB SAS + 4x 1.2TB SAS) |
+| **Total Drive Count** | **8 drives** (2 new + 6 from R620) |
+| **CPUs** | TBD — power on to check (C240 M5 supports 2x Xeon Scalable) |
+| **RAM** | TBD — power on to check (C240 M5 supports up to 3 TB) |
+| **Drive Bays** | C240 M5 has 24x 2.5" SFF or 12x 3.5" LFF depending on config |
+| **CIMC** | Cisco Integrated Management Controller (equivalent to iDRAC/iLO) |
+
+### ⚠️ Items to Verify on Power-On
+1. **CPU model & count** — Need to confirm sufficient cores/threads
+2. **Total RAM installed** — Current R620 workloads need ~62 GB minimum (CML alone uses 32 GB)
+3. **Drive bay form factor** — Should be 2.5" SFF to accept the R620 SAS drives
+4. **RAID controller or HBA** — Need HBA/IT mode for ZFS (NOT hardware RAID)
+5. **NIC configuration** — How many ports, speed, VLAN capability
+6. **CIMC IP/access** — For remote management
+7. **Firmware version** — May need BIOS/CIMC update
+
+---
+
+## 3. Migration Strategy — Option C: Wipe & Restore
+
+### Why This Approach
+
+The R620's "Vault" pool sits on a RAID 0 virtual disk behind an LSI SAS1068E controller. The RAID metadata is tied to that controller — the drives aren't directly portable as a ZFS pool. Rather than fighting controller compatibility, we'll:
+
+1. **Back everything up to PBS** (running now)
+2. **Wipe the R620 drives** (RAID metadata gets destroyed when removed anyway)
+3. **Install drives in C240** with a proper HBA/IT mode controller
+4. **Create a fresh ZFS pool** on the clean drives
+5. **Restore all VMs/CTs from PBS**
+
+### Benefits
+
+| Benefit | Details |
+|---------|---------|
+| **More storage** | 2x 960GB SSDs (boot mirror) + 4x 1.2TB drives = separate OS and data pools |
+| **Clean ZFS** | No RAID controller metadata — native ZFS from the start |
+| **Better redundancy** | Can use RAIDZ1 instead of RAID 0 (lose 1 drive worth of capacity, gain fault tolerance) |
+| **Full rollback** | R620 untouched until drives are pulled; PBS has all backups |
+| **No wasted drives** | Reusing all existing hardware |
+
+### Target Drive Layout
+
+```
+┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
+│                      UCS C240 M5                               │
+├─────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Boot Pool          │  Data Pool ("Vault")                     │
+│  2x 960GB SSD       │  4x 1.2TB NETAPP SAS (from R620)        │
+│  ZFS Mirror (RAID1) │  ZFS RAIDZ1 = ~3.6TB usable             │
+│  Proxmox OS +       │  OR ZFS Stripe = ~4.8TB (no redundancy) │
+│  local templates    │  VM/CT storage                           │
+├─────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────┤
+│  Spare: 2x 146GB Seagate SAS (from R620)                      │
+│  Options: ZIL/SLOG, L2ARC, small utility pool, or don't use   │
+└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
+```
+
+### ZFS Pool Decision
+
+| Option | Usable Space | Fault Tolerance | Recommendation |
+|--------|-------------|-----------------|----------------|
+| **4x RAIDZ1** | ~3.6 TB | Survives 1 drive failure | ✅ **RECOMMENDED** |
+| **2x Mirror pairs** | ~2.4 TB | Survives 1 per pair, better IOPS | Good if space isn't tight |
+| **4x Stripe (RAID0)** | ~4.8 TB | NO redundancy (current R620 setup) | ❌ Don't repeat this mistake |
+
+**RAIDZ1 is the way to go.** You only have ~108 GB of data currently, so 3.6 TB is more than enough. And you gain drive failure protection you don't have today.
+
+### What About the 2x 146GB Seagate Drives?
+
+These are small and old but still functional. Options:
+- **ZFS SLOG (write log)** — marginal benefit for home lab, skip unless doing sync writes
+- **L2ARC (read cache)** — 146GB of SAS cache, minor benefit with only 108GB of data
+- **Leave them out** — simplest option, fewer failure points
+- **Small utility pool** — ISOs, templates, scratch space
+
+**Recommendation:** Leave them out for now. Keep them as spares. You can always add them later.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Detailed Phase Breakdown
+
+### Phase 1: Prepare (Before Migration Day)
+
+#### 1.1 — Power On C240 M5 & Inventory
+```
+Action: Power on, access CIMC (default IP via console or DHCP)
+Check:  CPUs, RAM, drive bays, RAID controller model, NIC ports
+Goal:   Confirm hardware meets requirements (64+ GB RAM, 2.5" SFF bays, HBA capable)
+```
+
+#### 1.2 — RAID Controller Configuration
+```
+CRITICAL: ZFS needs raw disk access — NOT behind a hardware RAID controller
+
+If C240 M5 has Cisco 12G SAS Modular RAID Controller:
+  → Flash to IT mode (HBA passthrough) OR
+  → Configure JBOD mode in BIOS/CIMC
+  → Create individual RAID-0 per disk (JBOD workaround if needed)
+
+If C240 M5 has a simple HBA:
+  → No action needed, ZFS will see raw disks
+```
+
+#### 1.3 — Firmware Updates
+```
+Action: Check CIMC firmware version, update if below 4.x
+Tool:   Cisco Host Upgrade Utility (HUU) — bootable ISO
+Note:   Do this BEFORE installing Proxmox
+```
+
+#### 1.4 — Verify Backups
+```
+Action: Confirm all 7 running workloads backed up successfully
+Check:  tail -f /tmp/backup_all.log (running now)
+Verify: pvesm list PBS-Backups (from Proxmox shell)
+```
+
+---
+
+### Phase 2: Install Proxmox on C240 M5
+
+#### 2.1 — Proxmox Boot Drive Setup
+```
+Config:    ZFS Mirror (RAID-1) on the 2x 960GB SSDs
+Why:       Boot drive redundancy — if one SSD dies, system keeps running
+Installer: Select "zfs (RAID1)" during Proxmox install
+Bonus:     ~900GB usable for OS + local storage (ISOs, templates, etc.)
+```
+
+#### 2.2 — Network Configuration During Install
+```
+Management IP:   Pick a new IP (e.g., 192.168.2.141) — keep R620 at .140 as fallback
+Gateway:         192.168.2.1 (or whatever pfSense assigns)
+DNS:             Match current R620 config
+Hostname:        pve-c240 (or whatever you prefer)
+Bridge:          vmbr0 on primary NIC
+```
+
+#### 2.3 — Post-Install Configuration
+```bash
+# Add PBS storage
+pvesm add pbs PBS-Backups \
+  --server 192.168.2.151 \
+  --datastore <datastore-name> \
+  --username <pbs-user> \
+  --fingerprint <pbs-fingerprint> \
+  --content backup
+
+# Verify connectivity
+pvesm status
+
+# Add any needed repos (no-subscription, etc.)
+# Match /etc/apt/sources.list from R620
+```
+
+---
+
+### Phase 3: Migrate Data (The Big Move)
+
+#### 3.1 — Pre-Migration Checklist
+```
+□ All backups verified on PBS (all 7 running workloads)
+□ pfSense config exported as XML (Diagnostics → Backup & Restore)
+□ Proxmox configs backed up (tar czf /tmp/pve-configs.tar.gz /etc/pve/)
+□ C240 M5 Proxmox installed and accessible
+□ PBS storage connected on C240
+□ RAID controller in HBA/IT mode on C240
+□ Drive bays confirmed compatible (2.5" SFF SAS)
+□ Maintenance window planned (Home Assistant, pfSense will be down)
+```
+
+#### 3.2 — Shutdown Sequence (R620)
+```bash
+# Stop VMs/CTs in reverse dependency order
+# pfSense LAST (everything depends on it for networking)
+
+qm shutdown 102   # CML (resource heavy, shut down first)
+qm shutdown 114   # haos
+qm shutdown 100   # docker-hub
+qm shutdown 101   # monitoring-docker
+pct shutdown 109  # caddy
+pct shutdown 112  # twingate-connector
+qm shutdown 105   # pfSense — LAST
+
+# Wait for all to stop
+qm list && pct list
+
+# Power off R620
+shutdown -h now
+```
+
+#### 3.3 — Physical Drive Migration
+```
+1. Power off R620 completely (already done in 3.2)
+2. Pull the 4x NETAPP 1.2TB SAS drives (slots 2-5)
+3. Optionally pull 2x Seagate 146GB SAS drives (slots 0-1)
+4. Insert drives into C240 M5 drive bays
+5. Power on C240 M5
+6. Verify drives visible in CIMC/Proxmox: lsblk -d -o NAME,SIZE,MODEL,SERIAL
+```
+
+#### 3.4 — Create Fresh ZFS Pool on C240
+```bash
+# Identify the 4x 1.2TB NETAPP drives (will have new device names)
+lsblk -d -o NAME,SIZE,MODEL,SERIAL
+
+# Wipe any leftover RAID metadata
+wipefs -a /dev/sdX /dev/sdY /dev/sdZ /dev/sdW  # replace with actual device names
+
+# Create RAIDZ1 pool (RECOMMENDED — 1 drive fault tolerance)
+zpool create -f \
+  -o ashift=12 \
+  -O atime=off \
+  -O compression=lz4 \
+  -O recordsize=64k \
+  Vault raidz1 /dev/disk/by-id/<drive1> /dev/disk/by-id/<drive2> /dev/disk/by-id/<drive3> /dev/disk/by-id/<drive4>
+
+# Always use /dev/disk/by-id/ paths — they're stable across reboots
+
+# Verify pool
+zpool status Vault
+zpool list Vault
+
+# Add to Proxmox as storage
+pvesm add zfspool Vault-data -pool Vault -content images,rootdir
+```
+
+---
+
+### Phase 4: Restore & Verify
+
+#### 4.1 — Restore from PBS
+```bash
+# Restore each VM/CT from PBS backup
+# Easiest via Proxmox Web UI: Storage → PBS-Backups → Select backup → Restore
+
+# CLI examples if preferred:
+
+# VM 105 (pfSense) — RESTORE FIRST
+qmrestore PBS-Backups:backup/vzdump-qemu-105-<timestamp>.vma.zst 105 \
+  --storage Vault-data
+
+# LXC 109 (caddy)
+pct restore 109 PBS-Backups:backup/vzdump-lxc-109-<timestamp>.tar.zst \
+  --storage Vault-data
+
+# Repeat for: 100, 101, 102, 112, 114
+# Also restore stopped VMs if needed: 104, 106, 107, 113, 117
+```
+
+#### 4.2 — Startup Sequence (CRITICAL ORDER)
+```
+1. pfSense (105)           — FIRST — everything needs networking
+2. caddy (109)             — reverse proxy for services
+3. twingate-connector (112) — remote access
+4. docker-hub (100)        — core services
+5. monitoring-docker (101) — observability
+6. haos (114)              — Home Assistant
+7. CML (102)               — Cisco Modeling Labs (resource heavy, LAST)
+```
+
+#### 4.3 — Post-Migration Verification Checklist
+```
+□ All VMs/CTs start successfully
+□ pfSense routing/firewall rules intact
+□ pfSense WAN/LAN interfaces mapped correctly to new NIC names
+□ Home Assistant devices reconnected
+□ Docker containers running (check docker-hub VM)
+□ Monitoring/Grafana dashboards loading
+□ Caddy reverse proxy serving sites
+□ Twingate remote access working
+□ PBS backup jobs reconfigured on new Proxmox host
+□ ZFS pool healthy (zpool status Vault)
+□ No disk errors in dmesg
+□ SMART health on all drives (smartctl -a /dev/sdX)
+```
+
+---
+
+## 5. Rollback Plan
+
+```
+UNTIL you pull drives from R620, rollback is trivial:
+  1. Power off C240 M5
+  2. Power on R620
+  3. Everything is exactly as it was
+
+AFTER drives are pulled and wiped:
+  1. You cannot restore the R620 to original state
+  2. BUT: PBS has full backups of everything
+  3. If C240 fails: re-insert drives in R620, install fresh Proxmox, restore from PBS
+  4. OR: put drives back in C240 and troubleshoot
+
+KEY SAFETY NET: PBS on TrueNAS (192.168.2.150/151) is independent of both servers.
+As long as TrueNAS stays up, your backups are safe regardless of what happens.
+```
+
+---
+
+## 6. Estimated Timeline
+
+| Phase | Duration | Notes |
+|-------|----------|-------|
+| Phase 1: Prepare | 1-2 hours | CIMC setup, firmware, verify hardware, HBA config |
+| Phase 2: Install Proxmox | 30-45 min | Proxmox install on SSD mirror + basic config |
+| Phase 3: Migrate drives + ZFS pool | 30-60 min | Physical drive swap + create RAIDZ1 pool |
+| Phase 4: Restore from PBS | 1-3 hours | Depends on data size (~108 GB across all VMs) |
+| Phase 4: Verify | 1-2 hours | Start everything, test services |
+| **Total** | **~4-7 hours** | Plan for a half-day window |
+
+---
+
+## 7. Risk Matrix
+
+| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation |
+|------|--------|------------|------------|
+| C240 RAM insufficient (<64 GB) | HIGH | MEDIUM | Check CIMC before starting — need 62+ GB |
+| RAID controller doesn't support HBA/IT mode | HIGH | LOW | Most C240 M5 configs have this; JBOD workaround available |
+| Drive bay incompatible (3.5" LFF chassis) | HIGH | LOW | C240 M5 SFF variant uses 2.5" — verify on power-on |
+| PBS goes down during migration | HIGH | LOW | Fixed macvtap issue today; verify before starting |
+| pfSense NIC mapping changes | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | NICs will have different names on C240; remap in pfSense console |
+| Drive failure during migration | HIGH | LOW | RAID 0 has zero redundancy today — fresh backups are the safety net |
+| Firmware incompatibility | LOW | LOW | Update CIMC/BIOS first via HUU |
+
+---
+
+## 8. Pre-Migration Bonus Tasks (Do Before Migration Day)
+
+```bash
+# 1. Export pfSense config (CRITICAL — do from pfSense Web UI)
+#    Diagnostics → Backup & Restore → Download configuration as XML
+#    Save to local machine AND to TrueNAS
+
+# 2. Document current network config (run on R620)
+ip addr show
+cat /etc/network/interfaces
+cat /etc/hosts
+cat /etc/resolv.conf
+
+# 3. Save Proxmox configs
+tar czf /tmp/proxmox-configs-backup.tar.gz /etc/pve/
+
+# 4. Copy to TrueNAS for safekeeping
+scp /tmp/proxmox-configs-backup.tar.gz truenas_admin@192.168.2.150:/mnt/data/backups/
+
+# 5. Note down PBS connection details for re-adding on new Proxmox
+cat /etc/pve/storage.cfg | grep -A 10 PBS
+
+# 6. Record current VM disk locations
+for vmid in 100 101 102 104 105 106 107 114; do
+  echo "=== VM $vmid ==="; qm config $vmid | grep -E "scsi|virtio|ide|efidisk"
+done
+for ctid in 109 112 113 117; do
+  echo "=== CT $ctid ==="; pct config $ctid | grep rootfs
+done
+```
+
+---
+
+## 9. Open Questions (Resolve on Power-On)
+
+1. **C240 M5 drive bay form factor?** — Need 2.5" SFF for the R620 SAS drives
+2. **RAID controller model?** — Determines HBA/IT mode procedure
+3. **Total RAM?** — Minimum 64 GB needed (CML = 32 GB alone)
+4. **CPU specs?** — Should be fine, but confirm core count
+5. **Individual R620 drive sizes?** — Jordan to double-check (currently showing 2x 146GB + 4x 1.2TB)
+6. **ZFS pool layout preference?** — RAIDZ1 recommended (~3.6TB), stripe (~4.8TB) if you need space
+7. **Keep the 2x 146GB Seagates?** — Recommend leaving out; they're small and old
+8. **Same IP (.140) or new IP for C240?**
+9. **Hostname preference?** — `pve`, `pve-c240`, something else?
+
+---
+
+*Plan authored by Garvis — 2026-03-14*
+*Updated: Option C strategy (wipe drives, restore from PBS), added full drive inventory.*
+*Will be updated once C240 M5 hardware inventory is complete.*
--- a/memory_workspace/context.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/context.md
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Garvis Context — Always Loaded
+
+## Proxmox SSH
+Host: 192.168.2.100 · User: root · Port: 22 · Key: `C:/Users/fam1n/.ssh/garvis_serviceslab`
+VMs: docker-hub(100), monitoring(101), ubuntu-dev(104), pfSense(105), Ansible(106), ubuntu-docker(107), CML(108), haos(114), moltbot(119)
+Note: VMs 101/119 lack QEMU guest agent · Docker on VM100: gitea, gitea-db, teamspeak, portainer, beszel, vaultwarden
+
+## Monitoring VM (101)
+Host: 192.168.2.114 · User: server-admin · Port: 22 · Jump: root@192.168.2.100
+Services: Loki, Promtail, Grafana (Docker Compose)
+
+## Known Gotchas
+- **Obsidian files**: NEVER write directly to vault folder — always use `obsidian_update_note` (REST API). Filesystem writes don't trigger Obsidian's index; file exists on disk but Obsidian won't see it.
+- **Agent SDK timeouts**: Complex multi-tool tasks >5min will timeout — break into smaller steps or delegate to sub-agents
--- a/memory_workspace/homelab-repo-updates/INDEX-infrastructure-section.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/homelab-repo-updates/INDEX-infrastructure-section.md
@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# INDEX.md — Updated "Your Infrastructure" Section
+# Replace the section starting at "## Your Infrastructure" in INDEX.md with this:
+
+## Your Infrastructure
+
+Based on the export collected 2026-03-31, your environment includes:
+
+### Virtual Machines (QEMU/KVM)
+
+| VM ID | Name | Status | vCPU | RAM | Disk | Purpose |
+|-------|------|--------|------|-----|------|---------|
+| 100 | docker-hub | Running | 4 | 10GB | 100GB | Container registry / Docker hub mirror |
+| 101 | monitoring-docker | Running | 2 | 8GB | 50GB | Monitoring stack (Grafana / Prometheus / PVE Exporter) |
+| 102 | CML | Running | 8 | 32GB | 200GB | Cisco Modeling Labs — network simulation |
+| 104 | ubuntu-dev | Stopped (Template) | 2 | 5GB | 32GB | Ubuntu dev environment template |
+| 105 | pfSense-Firewall | Stopped | 2 | 2GB | 16GB | Firewall lab VM |
+| 106 | Ansible-Control | Stopped | 2 | 4GB | 32GB | IaC / Ansible control node |
+| 107 | ubuntu-docker | Stopped (Template) | 2 | 4GB | 50GB | Ubuntu Docker host template |
+| 114 | haos | Stopped | 2 | 4GB | 50GB | Home Assistant OS |
+
+### Containers (LXC)
+
+| CT ID | Name | Status | vCPU | RAM | IP | Purpose |
+|-------|------|--------|------|-----|----|---------|
+| 109 | caddy | Running | 2 | 2GB | 192.168.2.129 | Reverse proxy + SSL (replaced Nginx Proxy Manager) |
+| 112 | twingate-connector | Running | 1 | 1GB | DHCP | Zero-trust remote access connector |
+| 113 | n8n | Running | 2 | 4GB | 192.168.2.113 | Workflow automation (PostgreSQL 16 + pgvector) |
+| 117 | test-cve-database | Stopped | 4 | 8GB | 192.168.2.117 | CVE database test environment |
+
+### Storage Pools
+
+| Name | Type | Used% | Total | Purpose |
+|------|------|-------|-------|---------|
+| Vault | ZFS Pool | ~2% (110GB) | 4.36TB | Primary VM/CT storage |
+| PBS-Backups | Proxmox Backup Server | ~29.78% | ~1TB | Automated backups |
+| iso-share | NFS | ~1.61% | ~3TB | ISO / installation media |
+| local | Directory | ~22.57% | 45GB | System files, templates |
+| local-lvm | LVM-Thin | ~0.01% | 69GB | Thin-provisioned VM disks |
+
+### Network
+
+| Bridge | IP | Purpose |
+|--------|----|---------|
+| vmbr0 | 192.168.2.100/24 | Primary LAN (eno1) |
+| vmbr1 | 192.168.3.0/24 | Internal/isolated bridge |
+
+**Proxmox host**: serviceslab @ 192.168.2.100, PVE 8.4.0 (kernel 6.8.12-17-pve)
+**Host uptime at last export**: 58 days (since ~2026-02-01)
+
+### What Changed Since Last Documentation (2025-12)
+
+| Change | Detail |
+|--------|--------|
+| Proxmox upgraded | 8.3.3 → 8.4.0 |
+| NPM replaced | Nginx Proxy Manager (CT 102) removed; Caddy (CT 109) now handles reverse proxy/SSL |
+| CML expanded | CML moved to VM 102, now running with 8 vCPU / 32GB RAM / 200GB disk |
+| Removed | CT 103 (netbox), CT 115 (TinyAuth), VM 109/110 (web servers), VM 111 (db-server), VM 120 (OpenClaw) |
+| Added | CT 117 (test-cve-database, stopped) |
+| Now stopped | VM 114 (haos), VM 106 (Ansible-Control) |
--- a/memory_workspace/homelab-repo-updates/README.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/homelab-repo-updates/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
+# Homelab Infrastructure Repository
+
+Version-controlled infrastructure configuration for my Proxmox-based homelab environment.
+
+## Overview
+
+This repository contains configuration files, scripts, and documentation for managing a Proxmox VE 8.4.0 homelab environment. The infrastructure follows a hybrid architecture combining traditional virtualization (KVM/QEMU) with containerization (LXC) for optimal resource utilization.
+
+## Infrastructure Components
+
+### Proxmox Host
+- **Node**: serviceslab
+- **IP**: 192.168.2.100
+- **Version**: Proxmox VE 8.4.0 (kernel 6.8.12-17-pve)
+- **Architecture**: Single-node cluster
+- **Primary Use**: Services and development laboratory
+
+### Virtual Machines — Running
+
+| VMID | Name | vCPU | RAM | Disk | Purpose |
+|------|------|------|-----|------|---------|
+| 100 | docker-hub | 4 | 10GB | 100GB | Container registry and Docker hub mirror |
+| 101 | monitoring-docker | 2 | 8GB | 50GB | Monitoring stack (Grafana/Prometheus/PVE Exporter) |
+| 102 | CML | 8 | 32GB | 200GB | Cisco Modeling Labs — network simulation lab |
+
+### Virtual Machines — Stopped / Templates
+
+| VMID | Name | vCPU | RAM | Notes |
+|------|------|------|-----|-------|
+| 104 | ubuntu-dev | 2 | 5GB | Template — Ubuntu dev environment |
+| 105 | pfSense-Firewall | 2 | 2GB | Stopped — firewall lab VM |
+| 106 | Ansible-Control | 2 | 4GB | Stopped — IaC control node |
+| 107 | ubuntu-docker | 2 | 4GB | Template — Ubuntu Docker host |
+| 114 | haos | 2 | 4GB | Stopped — Home Assistant OS |
+
+### Containers (LXC) — Running
+
+| CTID | Name | vCPU | RAM | IP | Purpose |
+|------|------|------|-----|----|---------|
+| 109 | caddy | 2 | 2GB | 192.168.2.129 | Reverse proxy and SSL termination (replaced NPM) |
+| 112 | twingate-connector | 1 | 1GB | DHCP | Zero-trust network access connector |
+| 113 | n8n | 2 | 4GB | 192.168.2.113 | Workflow automation (PostgreSQL 16 + pgvector) |
+
+### Containers (LXC) — Stopped
+
+| CTID | Name | vCPU | RAM | Notes |
+|------|------|------|-----|-------|
+| 117 | test-cve-database | 4 | 8GB | Stopped — CVE database test environment |
+
+### Storage Pools
+
+| Name | Type | Used | Total | Purpose |
+|------|------|------|-------|---------|
+| Vault | ZFS Pool | ~2% (110GB) | 4.36TB | Primary VM/CT disk storage |
+| PBS-Backups | Proxmox Backup Server | ~29.78% | ~1TB | Automated backup repository |
+| iso-share | NFS | ~1.61% | ~3TB | Installation media library |
+| local | Directory | ~22.57% | 45GB | System files, ISOs, templates |
+| local-lvm | LVM-Thin | ~0.01% | 69GB | VM disk images (thin provisioned) |
+
+### Network
+
+| Bridge | IP | Purpose |
+|--------|-----|---------|
+| vmbr0 | 192.168.2.100/24 | Primary LAN bridge (eno1) |
+| vmbr1 | 192.168.3.0/24 | Internal/isolated bridge |
+
+---
+
+## Repository Structure
+
+```
+homelab/
+├── services/                    # Docker Compose service configurations
+│   ├── n8n/                    # n8n workflow automation
+│   └── README.md               # Services overview
+├── monitoring/                  # Observability stack configs
+│   ├── grafana/
+│   ├── prometheus/
+│   └── pve-exporter/
+├── scripts/
+│   ├── crawlers-exporters/     # Infrastructure collection scripts
+│   │   ├── collect.sh          # Convenience wrapper (uses .env)
+│   │   ├── collect-remote.sh   # SSH wrapper for WSL2
+│   │   └── collect-homelab-config.sh  # Main collection engine
+│   ├── fixers/                 # Problem-solving scripts
+│   └── qol/                    # Git utilities
+├── start-here-docs/            # Getting started guides
+├── sub-agents/                 # AI agent role definitions
+├── troubleshooting/            # Bug fixes and audit findings
+├── disaster-recovery/          # Infrastructure export snapshots
+├── .env.example                # Configuration template
+├── CLAUDE.md                   # AI assistant project context
+├── INDEX.md                    # Comprehensive documentation index
+└── README.md                   # This file
+```
+
+---
+
+## Monitoring & Observability
+
+Deployed on VM 101 (monitoring-docker):
+
+| Component | Port | Purpose |
+|-----------|------|---------|
+| Grafana | 3000 | Dashboards and visualization |
+| Prometheus | 9090 | Metrics collection |
+| PVE Exporter | 9221 | Proxmox metrics scraper |
+
+See `monitoring/README.md` for setup and configuration details.
+
+---
+
+## Reverse Proxy
+
+**Caddy** (CT 109, 192.168.2.129) handles reverse proxying and automatic TLS for all services. Replaced Nginx Proxy Manager in early 2026.
+
+---
+
+## Remote Access
+
+**Twingate** (CT 112) provides zero-trust remote access without a traditional VPN. No open inbound firewall rules required.
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Automation
+
+**n8n** (CT 113) runs on PostgreSQL 16 with the pgvector extension for RAG/vector search workflows. See `services/n8n/` for configuration and `scripts/fixers/` for common database repair scripts.
+
+---
+
+## Collecting Your Infrastructure State
+
+```bash
+# 1. Configure your environment
+cp .env.example .env
+nano .env   # Set PROXMOX_HOST=192.168.2.100
+
+# 2. Run the collector
+bash scripts/crawlers-exporters/collect.sh
+
+# 3. Review the output
+cat homelab-export-*/SUMMARY.md
+```
+
+See `start-here-docs/QUICK-START.md` for the full 5-minute setup guide.
+
+---
+
+## Security Notes
+
+- `.env` is git-ignored — never commit it
+- Exported configs sanitize passwords and tokens by default
+- Review `troubleshooting/` for the December 2025 security audit findings and remediation roadmap
+- See `20260331 - Homelab GitOps Optimization Plan` in Obsidian for the full GitOps and security hardening roadmap
+
+---
+
+## Backup Strategy
+
+- **Automated**: Proxmox Backup Server (PBS-Backups pool) handles VM/CT snapshots
+- **Config snapshots**: Run `collect.sh` periodically; exports stored in `disaster-recovery/`
+- **Repository**: All config changes version-controlled here
+
+---
+
+*Last Updated: 2026-03-31*
+*Proxmox Version: 8.4.0*
+*Infrastructure: 3 VMs running, 5 VMs stopped/templates, 3 LXC running, 1 LXC stopped*
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-02.jsonl
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-02.jsonl
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T18:47:30.201926", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (165 messages processed)\nLast tool used: mcp__file_system__run_command\nUsed 14 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": " Double check the code for the vuln triage page. We did implement some of tier 2 already for some ti"}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-02T19:21:05.441930", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (74 messages processed)\nLast tool used: mcp__file_system__delegate_task\nUsed 5 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "Where did you leave off"}, "self_healed": false}
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-03.jsonl
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-03.jsonl
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-03T16:55:30.138074", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (83 messages processed)\nLast tool used: WebFetch\nUsed 6 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "On this pc im running Apollo to stream my games to my rog ally x running moonlight. Can you look. Th"}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-03T20:35:44.911424", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (11 messages processed)\nLast tool used: WebFetch\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "bumping up my budget, take your recommendation and analyze it against 45 Inch UltraGear™ evo OLED 5K"}, "self_healed": false}
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-04.jsonl
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-04.jsonl
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-04T08:51:14.521734", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (13 messages processed)\nLast tool used: WebFetch\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "I get a message in moonlight that says hardware or host on gpu doesn't support av1 when I connect fr"}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-04T09:48:16.090042", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (14 messages processed)\nLast tool used: WebFetch\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "yes please. Whats the difference between sunshine and apollo"}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-04T10:49:25.419527", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (9 messages processed)\nLast tool used: WebFetch\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "is there a way we could configure a virtual display in sunshine manually together?"}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-04T11:28:12.286350", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Command failed with exit code 3221225786 (exit code: 3221225786)\nError output: Check stderr output for details", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "is there a way we could configure a virtual display in sunshine manually together?"}, "self_healed": false}
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-08.jsonl
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-08.jsonl
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-08T22:06:53.850809", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (39 messages processed)\nLast tool used: TodoWrite\nUsed 5 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "can you go through the loki logs, specifically for network 192.168.2.0/24 and take an inventory of t"}, "self_healed": false}
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-21.jsonl
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/errors/2026-04-21.jsonl
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-21T18:16:49.928431", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (16 messages processed)\nLast tool used: Read\nUsed 4 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "I just send you an email. Download those attachments and analyze the DAP 4.8 file"}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-21T18:56:25.822252", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (16 messages processed)\nLast tool used: Read\nUsed 4 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 2, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "Did you download the attachments"}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-21T20:22:15.303985", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (11 messages processed)\nLast tool used: WebFetch\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "So let's go over the dividend being not guaranteed. Given the companies a+ rating can you give me a "}, "self_healed": false}
+{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-21T20:52:15.705546", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (14 messages processed)\nLast tool used: WebFetch\nUsed 4 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "Time for your daily zettelkasten review! Help Jordan process fleeting notes:\n\n1. Use search_by_tags "}, "self_healed": false}
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/memory-scores-2026-04-20.json
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/memory-scores-2026-04-20.json
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/week-2026-14.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/week-2026-14.md
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+# Weekly Reflection Report — Week 14 (2026-03-30 → 2026-04-05)
+
+## Overview
+
+| Metric | Value |
+|--------|-------|
+| Total interactions | 81 |
+| Total signals | 88 |
+| Total errors | 8 |
+| Timeouts (30min limit) | 7 |
+| Avg response time | 80.0s |
+| Max response time | 659.6s (11 min) |
+| Min response time | 11.5s |
+| Slow (>60s) | 34 (41%) |
+| Positive signals | 12 (14%) |
+| Negative signals | 9 (10%) |
+| Corrections followed | 3 |
+
+## Task Breakdown
+
+| Type | Count | % |
+|------|-------|---|
+| Query | 53 | 65% |
+| Creative | 13 | 16% |
+| Analysis | 9 | 11% |
+| Action | 6 | 7% |
+
+| Complexity | Count | % |
+|------------|-------|---|
+| Complex | 36 | 44% |
+| Simple | 24 | 30% |
+| Moderate | 21 | 26% |
+
+## Top Tools Used
+
+| Tool | Calls |
+|------|-------|
+| Bash | 225 |
+| Read | 163 |
+| Glob | 68 |
+| SSH Execute | 43 |
+| Gitea Read File | 39 |
+| File System Read | 22 |
+| Grep | 22 |
+| WebSearch | 22 |
+| Gitea List Files | 18 |
+| TodoWrite | 15 |
+| Task (sub-agents) | 14 |
+| Search Vault | 13 |
+
+---
+
+## Q1: What Went Well?
+
+**Positive signal rate held at 14%** — 12 of 88 signals were explicitly positive, which tracks with Jordan's communication style (he doesn't hand out gold stars, so 14% is actually decent).
+
+**Infrastructure diagnostics were a strength.** The Apollo/Sunshine log analysis, resolution debugging, and Proxmox SSH operations all completed efficiently. SSH Execute was used 43 times without a single SSH-related error — the connection to Proxmox and monitoring VMs is rock solid.
+
+**Gitea integration performed well.** 39 file reads + 18 directory listings for code review tasks (CVE dashboard, etc.) completed without errors. The tool chain of `gitea_list_files` → `gitea_read_file` is now a reliable pattern for repo analysis.
+
+**Simple queries were fast.** Min response time of 11.5s shows that when the task is straightforward, the system responds efficiently. The 24 simple-complexity tasks likely averaged well under the 80s mean.
+
+---
+
+## Q2: What Went Wrong?
+
+**Timeouts are the headline problem.** 7 of 8 errors were 30-minute timeout kills. That's a 8.6% timeout rate across 81 interactions — far too high.
+
+Breakdown of timeout causes:
+- **4 timeouts (Apr 3–4)**: All had `WebFetch` as last tool used. WebFetch is hanging on certain URLs and never returning, burning the entire 30-minute budget.
+- **1 timeout (Apr 2)**: `delegate_task` — sub-agent spawned but didn't complete within budget.
+- **1 timeout (Apr 2)**: `run_command` — likely a long-running shell command without timeout.
+- **1 crash (Apr 4)**: Exit code 3221225786 — a Windows-specific process crash (0xC000013A = Ctrl+C termination or similar).
+
+**41% of interactions exceeded 60 seconds.** The average of 80s is dragged up by the long tail, but even so — 34 of 81 interactions taking over a minute indicates systemic sluggishness on complex tasks.
+
+**The 659s interaction** ("What's the error. This is twice you've timed out...") is ironic — Jordan was complaining about timeouts, and the response itself nearly timed out. That's a bad look.
+
+**Negative signal rate at 10%** with 3 corrections. The corrections suggest I'm sometimes heading in the wrong direction before Jordan steers me back.
+
+---
+
+## Q3: What Patterns Emerged?
+
+**Query-dominant workload (65%).** Jordan primarily uses Garvis for information retrieval and analysis — checking configs, reading logs, reviewing code. Creative tasks (16%) include documentation and report generation. Pure actions (7%) are rare.
+
+**High complexity ratio.** 44% of tasks rated complex. This aligns with the slow response times — Jordan isn't asking simple questions, he's asking for multi-file analysis and cross-system diagnostics.
+
+**Bash dominance (225 calls).** Bash is used 2.7× as often as the next tool. This makes sense given the infra-heavy workload, but it also means shell execution efficiency directly impacts overall performance.
+
+**Read-heavy pattern.** Read (163) + Glob (68) + Grep (22) = 253 file-reading operations. That's 3× the total interactions — averaging ~3 file reads per task. Code review and config analysis tasks are file-IO bound.
+
+**WebFetch is a liability.** It appears 22 times in tool usage but is the last tool in 4 of 7 timeouts. It has a ~18% failure rate when it's the primary operation.
+
+---
+
+## Q4: What Is Being Wasted?
+
+**~3.5 hours of compute burned on timeouts.** 7 timeouts × 30 minutes = 210 minutes of wall-clock time where I was running but producing nothing. That's time Jordan was waiting.
+
+**WebFetch retry loops.** The Apr 3–4 timeouts all show WebFetch as the culprit — likely the same or similar URLs being retried without a circuit breaker. Each retry burns another 30 minutes.
+
+**The 659s interaction was salvageable.** An 11-minute response that started with "What's the error" could have been broken into a quick acknowledgment + background investigation. Instead, Jordan waited 11 minutes for what was probably a diagnostic dump.
+
+**Zettelkasten daily review is stale.** The same 3 fleeting notes (from March 18 and April 2) appear every review cycle. The task runs daily but produces no new value until Jordan actually processes them. Consider: auto-skip notes older than 7 days, or batch-prompt less frequently.
+
+---
+
+## Q5: Recommendations
+
+### 1. `[config]` Add WebFetch timeout/circuit breaker
+**Data:** 4 of 7 timeouts (57%) were WebFetch hangs. WebFetch has an ~18% failure rate.
+**Action:** Implement a 30-second timeout on WebFetch calls. After 2 failed fetches in a session, switch to alternative tools (Bash curl, or skip). This alone would have prevented 4 of 7 timeouts this week.
+
+### 2. `[prompt]` Break complex tasks into checkpoint responses
+**Data:** 34 of 81 interactions (41%) exceeded 60s. Average is 80s.
+**Action:** For any task estimated to take >60s, send an immediate acknowledgment ("On it — checking X, Y, Z") then work in stages. Jordan shouldn't stare at a spinner for 11 minutes. The 659s interaction is the poster child for this.
+
+### 3. `[tool_usage]` Prefer Bash curl over WebFetch for known-unreliable URLs
+**Data:** 4 WebFetch timeouts on Apr 3–4, all during the same type of operation.
+**Action:** For web content fetching, use `Bash` with `curl --max-time 15` as the primary approach. Fall back to WebFetch only when HTML-to-markdown processing is specifically needed.
+
+### 4. `[memory]` Auto-archive stale fleeting notes
+**Data:** 3 fleeting notes have persisted across 14+ daily review cycles without being processed.
+**Action:** After 7 days unprocessed, automatically move fleeting notes to an "archive/stale" tag and stop surfacing them in daily reviews. Resurface weekly instead, or prompt Jordan once with "These have been sitting for 2 weeks — bulk delete?"
+
+### 5. `[config]` Add sub-agent timeout guard
+**Data:** 1 timeout from `delegate_task` running unchecked for 30 minutes.
+**Action:** Set a 5-minute hard timeout on delegated sub-agents. If a sub-agent hasn't returned in 5 minutes, kill it and report partial results. The watchdog exists in concept but clearly didn't catch this one.
+
+---
+
+*Report generated: 2026-04-05T20:00 MST*
+*Next review: Week 15 (2026-04-12)*
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/week-2026-15.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/week-2026-15.md
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+# RSO Weekly Reflection — Week 15 (2026-04-06 → 2026-04-12)
+
+## Summary
+
+| Metric | Value |
+|---|---|
+| Total interactions | 72 |
+| Total signals | 74 |
+| Positive signals | 12 (16%) |
+| Negative signals | 9 (12%) |
+| Corrections followed | 5 (7%) |
+| Errors | 1 |
+| Timeouts | 1 |
+| Avg response time | 82.1s |
+| Max response time | 397.5s |
+| Slow interactions (>60s) | 29 (40%) |
+
+---
+
+## Q1: What went well?
+
+**Positive signal rate held at 16%** — 12 of 74 signals were explicitly positive, meaning roughly 1 in 6 interactions earned direct approval. Given Jordan's communication style (he tends not to praise unless something genuinely landed), this is a reasonable baseline.
+
+**Query-type tasks dominated (58%)** and completed reliably — 42 of 72 interactions were queries (weather checks, vault reviews, article analysis). These are the bread-and-butter tasks where tool chains are predictable and delivery is fast.
+
+**SSH execution was the workhorse** — 158 `ssh_execute` calls across the week, covering Twingate updates, Proxmox management, and infrastructure checks. Zero SSH-related errors logged, meaning the homelab connectivity pipeline is solid.
+
+**Tool diversity was high** — 12+ distinct tools used regularly, indicating the full MCP toolkit is being exercised rather than falling back to a narrow subset.
+
+---
+
+## Q2: What went wrong?
+
+**40% of interactions were slow (>60s)** — 29 of 72 interactions exceeded 60 seconds. This is the single biggest issue. The average duration was 82.1s, dragged up by several interactions exceeding 5 minutes.
+
+**Top offenders by duration:**
+- 397s — "Where's the plan?" — likely a complex planning/search task that spiraled
+- 380s — Clipboard/TikTok data entry scoping — creative task with ambiguous requirements
+- 318s — A bare "yes" confirmation that triggered a 5+ minute execution chain
+- 302s — Git pull/check workflow — waiting on sequential operations
+
+**1 timeout (30-minute hard limit)** on April 8 — Agent SDK killed a task after 39 messages. Last tool was `TodoWrite` with 5 different tools in play. This was likely a complex multi-step task that kept spawning sub-steps without converging.
+
+**9 negative signals + 5 corrections** — 19% of signals indicated dissatisfaction or course correction. That's nearly 1 in 5 responses needing adjustment, which is too high.
+
+---
+
+## Q3: What patterns emerged?
+
+**Task type distribution:**
+- Query: 42 (58%) — weather, vault reviews, lookups
+- Creative: 15 (21%) — article analysis, planning, content generation
+- Analysis: 10 (14%) — technical assessments, comparisons
+- Action: 5 (7%) — actual infrastructure changes (Twingate update, etc.)
+
+**Complexity split:**
+- Simple: 34 (47%)
+- Complex: 28 (39%)
+- Moderate: 10 (14%)
+
+This is a bimodal distribution — tasks are either quick lookups or deep multi-tool operations. Very few land in the middle. The "moderate" category is underrepresented, suggesting Jordan either asks simple questions or launches full projects with little in between.
+
+**Tool chain patterns:**
+- `Read → Bash → ssh_execute` — standard infrastructure management chain
+- `search_vault → read_file` — zettelkasten review pattern (repeated 3+ times this week for the same 3 fleeting notes)
+- `WebSearch → web_fetch → Read` — article analysis chain
+- `gitea_list_files → gitea_read_file` — code review/repo exploration
+
+**Recurring task:** The daily zettelkasten review ran 3 times this week, each time surfacing the same 3 unprocessed fleeting notes. The review itself works; the processing step is stalled on Jordan's decision.
+
+---
+
+## Q4: What is being wasted?
+
+**Zettelkasten review overhead** — 3 reviews this week, ~60-90s each, for the same 3 notes that haven't been actioned in 25 days. Estimated 3-4 minutes of compute time this week producing identical output. The reviews are generating recommendations Jordan isn't acting on.
+
+**Weather report redundancy** — Multiple weather checks this week using the same dual-fetch pattern (OpenWeatherMap fails on "Centennial" every time, wttr.in succeeds every time). ~30s wasted per check on the OpenWeatherMap call that will never work.
+
+**Slow "yes" confirmations** — Two interactions where a simple "yes" triggered 240-318s execution chains. These likely involve complex multi-step operations where the confirmation kicks off a long sequential pipeline. The work itself may be necessary, but the duration suggests opportunities for parallelization.
+
+**Read tool overuse** — 193 Read calls (highest of any tool). Some of this is necessary context-loading, but the volume suggests repeated reads of the same files across interactions rather than caching/remembering content from earlier in the session.
+
+---
+
+## Q5: Recommendations
+
+### 1. `config` — Remove OpenWeatherMap from weather workflow
+**Data:** OpenWeatherMap fails on "Centennial, CO" in 100% of attempts (3+ this week, consistent across all prior weeks). Every weather request wastes ~10-15s on a guaranteed failure.
+**Action:** Update weather logic to skip OpenWeatherMap entirely for Centennial and go straight to wttr.in, or use "Denver, CO" as the OpenWeatherMap fallback.
+
+### 2. `prompt` — Auto-process stale fleeting notes after 3 reviews
+**Data:** 3 zettelkasten reviews this week produced identical output for 3 notes that have been fleeting for 25+ days. 3-4 minutes of total compute wasted on repeated recommendations.
+**Action:** After the 3rd review with no action, auto-propose a batch action ("I'll merge notes 1+2 into a permanent note and archive note 3 — say 'no' to stop me"). Shift from passive recommendation to opt-out execution.
+
+### 3. `tool_usage` — Parallelize confirmation-triggered workflows
+**Data:** 2 interactions where a "yes" confirmation led to 240-318s sequential execution. 40% of all interactions exceeded 60s.
+**Action:** When a "yes" triggers multiple independent operations, use `delegate_task` or parallel tool calls instead of sequential execution. Target: reduce the 40% slow-interaction rate to <25%.
+
+### 4. `memory` — Cache repeated file reads within sessions
+**Data:** 193 Read calls — highest tool count, exceeding even Bash (186). Many are likely re-reads of the same files (MEMORY.md, SOUL.md, user profiles) across multi-turn conversations.
+**Action:** When a file has been read earlier in the same session and hasn't been modified, reference the cached content instead of re-reading. Won't help across sessions but reduces intra-session overhead.
+
+### 5. `prompt` — Reduce negative signal rate from 19% to <10%
+**Data:** 9 negative + 5 correction signals out of 74 total (19%). Nearly 1 in 5 responses needed adjustment.
+**Action:** Review the 9 negative-signal interactions to identify common triggers. Likely causes: over-explaining when action was wanted, or misreading task scope. Specific patterns to investigate next week.
+
+---
+
+*Generated: 2026-04-12 | Next review: 2026-04-19*
--- a/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/week-2026-17.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/observation/summaries/week-2026-17.md
@@ -0,0 +1,124 @@
+# RSO Weekly Reflection — Week 17 (2026-04-14 → 2026-04-20)
+
+## Summary Statistics
+
+| Metric | Value |
+|--------|-------|
+| Total interactions | 80 |
+| Total signals | 78 |
+| Errors / Timeouts | 0 / 0 |
+| Avg duration | 55.9s |
+| Max duration | 438.8s |
+| Slow (>60s) | 16 (20%) |
+| Positive signals | 5 (6.4%) |
+| Negative signals | 5 (6.4%) |
+| Corrections followed | 3 |
+
+**Task types**: query (55), creative (11), action (8), analysis (6)
+**Complexity**: simple (53), complex (20), moderate (7)
+
+---
+
+## Q1: What Went Well?
+
+- **Zero errors and zero timeouts** — a clean week from an infrastructure stability standpoint. No tool failures, no dropped connections.
+- **Simple tasks dominated** (53 of 80 = 66%) and completed within acceptable latency for the majority.
+- **5 explicit positive signals** received with neutral follow-ups being the overwhelming majority (66 of 78 = 85%), indicating Jordan generally accepted outputs without needing refinement.
+- **Tool diversity** was high — 12+ distinct tools actively used, demonstrating the MCP ecosystem is functioning end-to-end (SSH, file system, search, web fetch, Bash, delegation).
+- **Delegation via Task agent** used 20 times — appropriate offloading of complex sub-tasks to parallel agents.
+
+---
+
+## Q2: What Went Wrong?
+
+- **20% of interactions exceeded 60s** (16 of 80) — one in five requests ran slow. The worst offender was 438s (7+ minutes) for the RSO weekly reflection itself.
+- **5 negative signals and 3 corrections** — a 6.4% dissatisfaction rate. Combined with 2 refinement requests, 10 of 78 signals (12.8%) indicated suboptimal first-response quality.
+- **Complex tasks (25%) drove disproportionate latency**: the top 10 slowest interactions averaged ~230s and were all complex/analysis tasks (repo analysis, tax research, configuration parsing).
+- **No recurring error patterns** (0 errors), but the slow-task concentration suggests architectural limits are being hit on multi-file analysis tasks.
+
+---
+
+## Q3: What Patterns Emerged?
+
+### Task Distribution
+- **Queries dominate** (69% of all interactions) — Jordan uses Garvis primarily as a lookup/research tool, not an action executor.
+- **Creative tasks** (14%) are the second most common — writing, drafting, ideation.
+- **Actions** (10%) and **analysis** (8%) are minority use cases but account for most of the slow interactions.
+
+### Tool Usage Chains
+- **Bash (75) + Read (74) + mcp__file_system__read_file (47)** — the "investigate" pattern. Nearly every interaction involves reading something.
+- **mcp__file_system__list_directory (42)** — heavy directory traversal, often preceding file reads. Suggests exploration-before-action is the dominant workflow.
+- **TodoWrite (23)** — used in ~29% of interactions, indicating multi-step tasks are common.
+- **Task delegation (20)** — healthy delegation rate for complex subtasks.
+- **search_vault (19)** — memory/zettelkasten lookups are a core pattern.
+
+### Emerging Anti-Patterns
+- The RSO reflection itself is the single slowest task (438s). It's recursive overhead.
+- Repo analysis tasks (CVE dashboard, Kira configs) consistently exceed 150s — these are the prime delegation candidates.
+
+---
+
+## Q4: What Is Being Wasted?
+
+### Slow Interactions
+- **16 interactions >60s consumed ~56 minutes** of total processing time. If halved, that's 28 minutes of latency savings per week.
+- The 438s RSO reflection and 425s input-validation analysis together consumed 14+ minutes — nearly as much as all other slow tasks combined.
+
+### Redundant Patterns
+- **Bash (75) + mcp__file_system__run_command (22)** — two tools serving overlapping purposes. 22 uses of `run_command` could potentially be consolidated with Bash.
+- **Read (74) + mcp__file_system__read_file (47)** — 121 combined file reads. Some of these may be re-reads of the same files within a session.
+
+### Memory Waste
+- **73 of 75 memory files scored as stale** — 97% of indexed memory is not being actively referenced.
+- **2 archive candidates** with scores below -10 (ages 56–61 days): daily logs from February containing IP addresses, credentials, and status references that are now outdated.
+- The memory workspace has accumulated operational debt — most daily memory entries become noise after ~30 days.
+
+### Scheduled Tasks
+- The "daily API usage and cost report" appears repeatedly in memory context but no evidence of it producing actionable output this week.
+
+---
+
+## Q5: Recommendations
+
+### 1. `tool_usage` — Consolidate file-read tools
+**Evidence**: 74 `Read` + 47 `mcp__file_system__read_file` = 121 file reads across 80 interactions. Standardize on one tool per context to reduce overhead.
+**Action**: Default to Claude Code `Read` for local files; reserve `mcp__file_system__read_file` for MCP-only contexts (sub-agents, delegated tasks).
+
+### 2. `prompt` — Break complex analysis tasks into delegation chains
+**Evidence**: 6 of the top 10 slowest interactions (150–438s) involved multi-file repo analysis. These exceed the 5-minute agent timeout risk threshold.
+**Action**: For any task involving >3 files or repo-wide analysis, immediately delegate to a sub-agent with a scoped prompt rather than running inline.
+
+### 3. `memory` — Archive stale memory files (>30 days, score < -9)
+**Evidence**: 73 of 75 files (97%) scored stale. Top 10 archive candidates average score -10.2 with ages 33–61 days. None are being referenced in current interactions.
+**Action**: Move files with score < -9 and age > 45 days to `memory_workspace/archive/`. Retain only the last 30 days of daily logs in active memory. This would archive ~10 files immediately.
+
+### 4. `config` — Optimize the RSO reflection pipeline itself
+**Evidence**: The weekly reflection is the single slowest task at 438s (7.3 min). It's recursive: the observation system's most expensive operation is observing itself.
+**Action**: Pre-compute stats via a lightweight scheduled script (cron/daily) that writes a summary JSON. The weekly reflection then reads pre-computed data instead of parsing raw JSONL each time.
+
+### 5. `prompt` — Improve first-response quality to reduce corrections
+**Evidence**: 3 corrections + 2 refinements + 5 negative signals = 10 of 78 signals (12.8%) indicated the first response missed the mark.
+**Action**: For complex/moderate tasks, add a brief "understanding check" before executing — restate the interpreted request in one line before proceeding. This front-loads alignment and should reduce correction rate.
+
+---
+
+## Memory Scorer Output
+
+| Metric | Value |
+|--------|-------|
+| Files scored | 75 |
+| Core memory | 0 |
+| Active memory | 0 |
+| Archive candidates | 2 |
+| Stale candidates | 73 |
+
+**Top archive candidates:**
+- `memory/2026-02-18.md` — score: -12.1, age: 61d
+- `memory/2026-02-23.md` — score: -11.6, age: 56d
+- `memory/2026-03-01.md` — score: -11.0, age: 50d
+- `memory/2026-02-22.md` — score: -10.7, age: 57d
+- `memory/2026-02-26.md` — score: -10.3, age: 53d
+
+---
+
+*Generated: 2026-04-20 | Agent: RSO Weekly Reflection | Week 17*
--- a/memory_workspace/users/alice.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/users/alice.md
@@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
-# User: alice
-
-
-## Personal Info
- Name: Alice Johnson
- Role: Senior Python Developer
- Timezone: America/New_York (EST)
- Active hours: 9 AM - 6 PM EST
-
-## Preferences
- Communication: Detailed technical explanations
- Code style: PEP 8, type hints, docstrings
- Favorite tools: VS Code, pytest, black
-
-## Current Projects
- Building a microservices architecture
- Learning Kubernetes
- Migrating legacy Django app
-
-## Recent Conversations
- 2026-02-12: Discussed SQLite full-text search implementation
- 2026-02-12: Asked about memory system design patterns
--- a/memory_workspace/users/bob.md
+++ b/memory_workspace/users/bob.md
@@ -1,22 +0,0 @@
-# User: bob
-
-
-## Personal Info
- Name: Bob Smith
- Role: Frontend Developer
- Timezone: America/Los_Angeles (PST)
- Active hours: 11 AM - 8 PM PST
-
-## Preferences
- Communication: Concise, bullet points
- Code style: ESLint, Prettier, React best practices
- Favorite tools: WebStorm, Vite, TailwindCSS
-
-## Current Projects
- React dashboard redesign
- Learning TypeScript
- Performance optimization work
-
-## Recent Conversations
- 2026-02-11: Asked about React optimization techniques
- 2026-02-12: Discussed Vite configuration
				`@@ -0,0 +1 @@`
				{"record_type": "error", "timestamp": "2026-04-08T22:06:53.850809", "error_type": "Exception", "message": "Agent SDK error: Task timed out after 30 minutes (39 messages processed)\nLast tool used: TodoWrite\nUsed 5 different tools - this is a complex multi-step task\n\nSuggestions:\n- Break this into smaller, focused sub-tasks\n- Use 'delegate_task' tool to run parts in parallel\n- Ask me to retry with a more specific scope", "component": "agent.py:_chat_agent_sdk", "intent": "Calling Agent SDK for chat response", "attempt": 1, "context": {"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6", "message_preview": "can you go through the loki logs, specifically for network 192.168.2.0/24 and take an inventory of t"}, "self_healed": false}