harvest

# harvest Extract the repeatable procedure behind an unusually good result and land it as a reviewed cc-settings artifact — with the *evidence measured*, not asserted. The output is a concrete file (skill, rule, profile section, AGENTS.md diff, or team-knowledge note) plus a filled [harvest contract](./CONTRACT.md) whose verdict (PASS / FAIL / INCONCLUSIVE) decides whether it may be promoted, and to what scope. This is a **ratchet**: it only tightens shared standards on behavior it can show repeated or survived a trap. Behavior it cannot measure is marked INCONCLUSIVE and held back, not written up as fact. ## Phase 1 — Witnessed behavior census Before deciding *what* to harvest, inventory *what was actually seen*. For each candidate behavior, record — from evidence, not memory: - **Witness count**: how many independent sessions / transcripts / runs showed it, and therefore **multi-witness** (≥2) or **single-witness** (1). - **What repeated**: the steps that were identical every time — the deterministic core. - **What varied**: what differed across witnesses. Decide per difference: noise to drop, or part of the signal to preserve. - **Evidence inspected**: the transcripts, PRs, diffs, or outputs you actually read. - **Not proven**: what you are *inferring* rather than observing. Name the gaps. Evidence comes two ways — use whichever the user has: 1. **Interview** — 3–5 questions, one at a time: trigger? ordered steps? where the default would have gone wrong? how ...