role: user

text: ok - can you pull latest messages?


role: assistant

text: Using the `messages` skill now to pull the newest texts from your thread so we have exact current context. I’ll grab the latest entries and paste them back cleanly.


text: Using the `messages` skill to fetch both your overall latest texts and the latest entries in the Lisa thread so we don’t miss anything. I’ll report back with the newest items verbatim.


text: `chat "Lisa"` didn’t resolve by name in the database, but I can target her thread directly by number. I’m pulling the latest from that thread now.


text:
Yep. Pulled.

As of **Friday, February 20, 2026 (Pacific)**, latest in Lisa’s thread (`+13147372144`) is:

1. **12:58:21 PM (Lisa):**
   “The link I sent is to a professional association of attorneys from different firms who are trained in collaborative divorce. Blythe wasn’t personally familiar with the group, but recommended two lawyers not from that group - Kim Buchanan and Spirn Family law. Not sure if they are ‘collaborative’ lawyers specifically, but I’d love to figure this stuff out in the calmest way possible.”
2. **11:31:06 AM (you):** Liked her Google security-alert message.
3. **11:30:42 AM (Lisa):**
   “FYI you’re getting security alerts sent to my email from Google about your phone?”

If you want, I can draft a reply to the 12:58 PM message.


text: what would you say?


text:
I’d send:

“Thank you for checking with Blythe and sharing those names. I appreciate that you want to handle this in the calmest way possible, and I do too. I’ll look into Kim Buchanan and Spirn Family Law today to see whether they do collaborative work. If you’re open to it, let’s each reach out this week so we can get clear guidance and put an interim plan in place promptly.”


text: i'm sorta miffed that she's accusing me of being non-calm.


text:
Totally fair reaction. That phrase can land like a subtle jab.

I’d treat it as positioning, not a real accusation, and reclaim the frame:

“Agreed. I want this calm and practical too, and I’m focused on concrete next steps. I’ll review those names today so we can move on collaborative guidance this week.”

If you want to name it directly but softly:

“Just so you know, that wording landed as if I haven’t been calm. I’m trying hard to keep this constructive.”


text: can you put those two together?


text: “Thank you for checking with Blythe and sharing those names. I appreciate your effort to keep this calm, and that’s what I want too. Just so you know, the ‘calmest way possible’ line landed a little like I haven’t been calm, and I am working hard to keep this constructive. I’ll review Kim Buchanan and Spirn Family Law today to see whether they do collaborative work. If you’re open to it, let’s each reach out this week so we can get guidance and put an interim plan in place promptly.”


text: pull new messages.


text: Pulling now with the `messages` skill and checking both your overall inbox and Lisa’s thread so we only surface what’s new since the last pull.


text:
New since last pull in Lisa thread (`+13147372144`), **Friday, February 20, 2026 (PT)**:

1. **2:22:55 PM (you):** sent the combined message about calm/constructive + checking lawyers this week.
2. **2:25:43 PM (Lisa):**
   “I definitely didn’t mean that as a comment on you. I just meant I want to approach this in a steady way and not get into litigation if in any way possible. I agree that we should both reach out this week and get clarity.”

Want a short reply draft now?


text: yes please


text: “Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it. I share that goal and want to keep this steady and out of litigation if possible. I’ll reach out this week and will let you know what I learn about collaborative options.”