The Markdown-over-database choice makes sense for document-shaped output.
The harder problem seems to be concurrent semantic edits. Git-style
merging works for code because conflicts are syntactic. With prose,
two agents can produce logically conflicting conclusions without
triggering a merge conflict.
How does Sayou reason about semantic divergence when Agent A updates
a research note while Agent B is drafting against an older snapshot?
Current approach is last-write-wins with version history - simple but doesn’t solve concurrent edits.
I don’t think auto-merge is the right default for prose/research (unlike code where Git’s merge works). When Agent A writes strategic memo concluding X while Agent B writes concluding NOT-X, merging both is worse than surfacing the conflict.
Thinking the right model is:
∙ Optimistic writes (current behavior) for most cases
∙ Explicit locks for high-stakes docs agents know they’re collaborating on
∙ Diff tooling for post-hoc resolution when conflicts do occur
thanks for asking a great question. whats your thoughts?
Cool project. Took a few minutes to set up with Claude Code. Asked it
to save some research notes, closed the session, opened a new one and
it actually remembered. That's pretty much what I wanted. Nice work.
Thanks! We just shipped a Claude Code plugin so setup is now one command:
claude plugin install sayou@pixell-global
It adds hooks that automatically show your workspace at session start and capture your work in the background. So that "it actually remembered" experience you got works without even asking it to save.
The Markdown-over-database choice makes sense for document-shaped output.
The harder problem seems to be concurrent semantic edits. Git-style merging works for code because conflicts are syntactic. With prose, two agents can produce logically conflicting conclusions without triggering a merge conflict.
How does Sayou reason about semantic divergence when Agent A updates a research note while Agent B is drafting against an older snapshot?
Current approach is last-write-wins with version history - simple but doesn’t solve concurrent edits.
I don’t think auto-merge is the right default for prose/research (unlike code where Git’s merge works). When Agent A writes strategic memo concluding X while Agent B writes concluding NOT-X, merging both is worse than surfacing the conflict.
Thinking the right model is: ∙ Optimistic writes (current behavior) for most cases ∙ Explicit locks for high-stakes docs agents know they’re collaborating on ∙ Diff tooling for post-hoc resolution when conflicts do occur
thanks for asking a great question. whats your thoughts?
Cool project. Took a few minutes to set up with Claude Code. Asked it to save some research notes, closed the session, opened a new one and it actually remembered. That's pretty much what I wanted. Nice work.
Thanks! We just shipped a Claude Code plugin so setup is now one command:
It adds hooks that automatically show your workspace at session start and capture your work in the background. So that "it actually remembered" experience you got works without even asking it to save.