---
description: Read every URL referenced in docs/experience and docs/projects and enrich entries with verifiable material
---

# Discover Experience

Enrich the canonical resume sources under `docs/` by mining the URLs each entry
already references — repos, live sites, press, docs, package registries, talks.
The goal is to capture verifiable facts (metrics, scope, adoption signals,
tech-stack evidence) that the YAML doesn't state yet.

Scope: $ARGUMENTS — if empty, process all of `docs/experience/` and
`docs/projects/`. If a directory, glob, or entry name is given, restrict to it.

## Phase 0 — Inventory

1. `search` for URL-bearing fields across the scope: `url`, `repo`, `links`,
   `demo`, `press`, `website`, `github`, or any bare `https://` value.
2. Build a per-entry worklist: entry → [urls]. Entries with zero URLs get
   flagged in the final report as "no external evidence available" — do not
   invent sources for them and do not web_search around them unless the entry
   names a public artifact (a company, a published app, a talk).
3. Deduplicate URLs shared across entries; fetch once, attribute to all.

## Phase 1 — Fetch (fan out)

Use `read` directly on every URL — GitHub repos, PRs, arxiv, registries, and
docs pages all come back as structured markdown with anchors intact. For GitHub
repos, prefer the scheme forms where useful (`issue://`, `pr://`) and read the
README, release notes, and repo metadata (stars, language breakdown, last
commit) rather than crawling the tree.

If the scope spans more than ~5 entries, fan out with `task`: one subagent per
entry, each yielding a schema-shaped result:

```
entry_id, urls_read[],
facts[]: { claim, source_url, anchor, confidence: high|medium|low },
contradictions[]: { yaml_says, source_says, source_url },
dead_links[]
```

Per-fact rules for extraction:
- **Verifiable only.** A fact must be literally present at the source — star
  counts, npm downloads, contributors, changelog entries, press quotes, listed
  features, launch dates, named integrations. No inference from vibes.
- Prefer facts a resume can use: scale, adoption, recency, named technologies,
  third-party validation (press, citations, forks).
- Marketing copy on my own sites is weak evidence — mark it `confidence: low`
  and prefer registry/repo/press corroboration.
- Note anything at a URL that contradicts the current YAML (dates, stack,
  scope, status). Contradictions are findings, not silent fixes.

## Phase 2 — Enrich

For each entry, merge subagent findings and propose a YAML diff:

- Append to (or create) an `evidence:` list: `{ fact, source, retrieved: <date> }`
- Strengthen existing bullets ONLY when a fetched fact directly supports the
  upgrade (e.g., bullet says "open-source CLI" and the repo shows 1.2k stars →
  bullet may carry the number, with the evidence pointer)
- Add missing structural fields the source confirms: `stack`, `status`
  (active/archived per repo activity), `launched`, `press`
- Record `dead_links:` so I can fix or drop them
- NEVER touch employers, titles, dates, or claims of ownership based on
  fetched content — external sources verify artifacts, not my role in them.
  If a source implies a role discrepancy, list it under contradictions instead.

Show me the diff per entry via `ask` (apply / skip / edit). Apply approved
diffs with `edit`. Do not batch-apply without approval.

## Phase 3 — Gap search (optional, ask first)

After URL mining, ask whether to run `web_search` for coverage the YAML doesn't
link: press mentions, conference talks, podcast appearances, aggregator
listings tied to entry names (company names, product names, my name). Same
extraction rules; anything found enters as `confidence: medium` at best until
I confirm it's actually about me/my work — common-name collisions are real.

## Phase 4 — Report

- Entries enriched vs. skipped, fact count by confidence level
- All contradictions found (these matter more than the enrichments)
- Dead links list
- Entries with no external evidence — candidates for the interview command
  instead, since their content can only improve through my own answers

## Hard rules

- Every added fact carries `source` + `retrieved` — unattributed facts are
  banned from docs/.
- Enrichment never rewrites bullet prose style; it adds facts and evidence.
  Wording polish belongs to the resume-optimize pass.
- If a fetch fails, record it and move on. Never substitute memory of what a
  page "probably says."