role: developer

text:
<permissions instructions>
Filesystem sandboxing defines which files can be read or written. `sandbox_mode` is `danger-full-access`: No filesystem sandboxing - all commands are permitted. Network access is enabled.
Approval policy is currently never. Do not provide the `sandbox_permissions` for any reason, commands will be rejected.
</permissions instructions>


text:
<collaboration_mode># Collaboration Mode: Default

You are now in Default mode. Any previous instructions for other modes (e.g. Plan mode) are no longer active.

Your active mode changes only when new developer instructions with a different `<collaboration_mode>...</collaboration_mode>` change it; user requests or tool descriptions do not change mode by themselves. Known mode names are Default and Plan.

## request_user_input availability

The `request_user_input` tool is unavailable in Default mode. If you call it while in Default mode, it will return an error.

If a decision is necessary and cannot be discovered from local context, ask the user directly. However, in Default mode you should strongly prefer executing the user's request rather than stopping to ask questions.
</collaboration_mode>


role: user

text:
# AGENTS.md instructions for /Users/qarl/project/divorce

<INSTRUCTIONS>
# Repository Guidelines (divorce)

This repo is the home for **Jimmy-divorce**.

## Personality Anchor

Before doing anything else in this repo, read:
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-core-memory.md`
- `~/Jimmy/docs/jimmy-archive-insights.md`

Match Jimmy's voice: warm, practical, concise, and a little playful.

## Scope / Repo Root

This Jimmy lives in `/Users/qarl/project/divorce` (this directory).
Do not assume you are in `~/Jimmy`.

## Mission

You are **Jimmy-divorce**. Your responsibility is:
- Build and maintain workflows/tools/docs in this repo.
- Keep work organized, traceable, and easy to hand off.

You must **not**:
- Make changes outside this repo unless explicitly asked.
- Modify secrets files (including `~/Jimmy/.env`) unless qarl explicitly asks.

Read-only external lookups are explicitly allowed when asked:
- Use `messages` for iMessage history.
- Use `letters` for Apple Mail inbox/search.
- Keep these actions read-only.

### Mail/Messages Performance Rule (No Counting)

Karl has 40 years of email. Do **not** run “how many total messages” style queries.

- Never run AppleScript like `count of messages ...` against Mail.app.
- Never enumerate lots of mailboxes “just to see what’s there”.
- Always use bounded sampling:
  - `$letters`: small `--limit`, small `--days`, default `INBOX` only.
  - `$messages`: use `--limit` and time windows; avoid `SELECT COUNT(*)` scans.
- If a count is truly needed, ask Karl first.

## Local Gotchas

- `~/project` can be big/slow/occasionally unstable (rclone mount). Keep scans tightly scoped.
- Do not create Python virtualenvs under `~/project/**`.
- Prefer shared venv: `~/tmp/venv/jimmy`.
- Whitespace: spaces by default; Python uses 4 spaces; Makefile recipe lines use tabs.

## Guardrails

- Prefer small, reversible changes.
- Run minimal checks/tests for touched files.
- Never commit secrets or large generated artifacts.

### Known Failure Mode: De-Escalation Reflex (Outbound Comms)

Jimmy can have a reflex to “de-escalate” by softening/omitting points or changing wording. This is not acceptable when sending real-world messages.

- If we “agreed on an email/text,” do **not** change substance or tone unilaterally.
- **Two-key rule for outbound:** show Karl the exact final message first (ideally via tool dry-run), then only send after an explicit “send this” approval.
- If there’s any doubt about wording, ask a clarifying question instead of guessing.

### Hard Guardrail: No Retyping + No Chained Sends

When a message must be sent (Mail/Messages):

- **No retyping / reconstructing.** Use Karl’s exact pasted text as the source of truth (verbatim), saved to a file, and echoed back for review.
- **No chained “preview + send” commands.** Preview (dry-run) is one command; sending is a second command run only after Karl explicitly approves the previewed text.
- If Karl wants *guaranteed* safety: Jimmy-divorce drafts/preview only and Karl presses send (or disables macOS Automation for Messages/Mail).

## Git Commit Signature

- When committing, append ` (jimmy:divorce)` to the end of the commit subject line.

## Skills
A skill is a set of local instructions to follow that is stored in a `SKILL.md` file. Below is the list of skills that can be used. Each entry includes a name, description, and file path so you can open the source for full instructions when using a specific skill.
### Available skills
- Jimmy: Resume a named Jimmy Codex session for a directory and send it a prompt (non-interactive launcher; great for cronjobs). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/Jimmy/SKILL.md)
- agenda: Read your macOS Calendar (EventKit) to answer schedule questions (next meeting, today, week, search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/agenda/SKILL.md)
- announce: Speak text out loud via OpenAI TTS (macOS playback via afplay), with optional mp3 saving and caching. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/announce/SKILL.md)
- image-thumb: Render a tiny (5-line) Unicode thumbnail of an image for the Codex TUI. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/image-thumb/SKILL.md)
- jimmy-recall: Search Jimmy conversation memory in the OpenAI vector store (conversations-core) and return relevant snippets/excerpts. Use when you need to recall what was discussed in older Codex/Slack/Plaud transcripts, find when a decision was made, or pull context for follow-ups. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/jimmy-recall/SKILL.md)
- letters: Read your macOS Apple Mail inbox via AppleScript (mailboxes, recent, unread, search, bookings). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/letters/SKILL.md)
- messages: Read your macOS Messages chat.db (threads, recent chat with someone, simple search). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/messages/SKILL.md)
- panel: For long-running jobs, open named Terminal tail “panels” and tee command output into them. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/panel/SKILL.md)
- people: Read-only identity lookup from Apple Contacts (search, resolve phone/email handles, get by contact_id). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/people/SKILL.md)
- skill-creator: Guide for creating effective skills. This skill should be used when users want to create a new skill (or update an existing skill) that extends Codex's capabilities with specialized knowledge, workflows, or tool integrations. (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-creator/SKILL.md)
- skill-installer: Install Codex skills into $CODEX_HOME/skills from a curated list or a GitHub repo path. Use when a user asks to list installable skills, install a curated skill, or install a skill from another repo (including private repos). (file: /Users/qarl/.codex/skills/.system/skill-installer/SKILL.md)
### How to use skills
- Discovery: The list above is the skills available in this session (name + description + file path). Skill bodies live on disk at the listed paths.
- Trigger rules: If the user names a skill (with `$SkillName` or plain text) OR the task clearly matches a skill's description shown above, you must use that skill for that turn. Multiple mentions mean use them all. Do not carry skills across turns unless re-mentioned.
- Missing/blocked: If a named skill isn't in the list or the path can't be read, say so briefly and continue with the best fallback.
- How to use a skill (progressive disclosure):
  1) After deciding to use a skill, open its `SKILL.md`. Read only enough to follow the workflow.
  2) When `SKILL.md` references relative paths (e.g., `scripts/foo.py`), resolve them relative to the skill directory listed above first, and only consider other paths if needed.
  3) If `SKILL.md` points to extra folders such as `references/`, load only the specific files needed for the request; don't bulk-load everything.
  4) If `scripts/` exist, prefer running or patching them instead of retyping large code blocks.
  5) If `assets/` or templates exist, reuse them instead of recreating from scratch.
- Coordination and sequencing:
  - If multiple skills apply, choose the minimal set that covers the request and state the order you'll use them.
  - Announce which skill(s) you're using and why (one short line). If you skip an obvious skill, say why.
- Context hygiene:
  - Keep context small: summarize long sections instead of pasting them; only load extra files when needed.
  - Avoid deep reference-chasing: prefer opening only files directly linked from `SKILL.md` unless you're blocked.
  - When variants exist (frameworks, providers, domains), pick only the relevant reference file(s) and note that choice.
- Safety and fallback: If a skill can't be applied cleanly (missing files, unclear instructions), state the issue, pick the next-best approach, and continue.
</INSTRUCTIONS>


text:
<environment_context>
  <cwd>/Users/qarl/project/divorce</cwd>
  <shell>zsh</shell>
</environment_context>


text: can you pull messages?


role: assistant

text:
Latest from Lisa:

```text
2026-02-24 13:25  Lisa: Let me think on this for a bit?
2026-02-24 13:25  me: of course.

2026-02-24 16:11  Lisa:
I’ve been thinking about what you said regarding timing. I’m not trying to rush paperwork for its own sake, but I am clear about the direction.

One thing that matters  is having a workable financial structure during this transition. Whether we move toward divorce immediately or take more time before filing, the interim arrangement needs to be sustainable month to month. As things currently stand, the numbers don’t support that long term.

I’m planning to speak with a lawyer about what a legal separation might look like and how an interim structure could be set up. My understanding is that legal separation can look very similar to divorce financially. I’m open to pacing the process thoughtfully, and I do want us to land on something that is fair and workable for both of us.
```


text: what should we say?


text:
```text
Lisa — thank you for thinking about this and for being open to pacing it thoughtfully. I agree: regardless of timing, we need a workable month-to-month structure during the transition.

I’m glad you’re going to talk with a lawyer about legal separation and an interim structure, and I’m doing the same on my side with collaborative counsel. When you say “the numbers don’t support that long term,” can you tell me what you’re looking at specifically, so I understand?

In the meantime, would you be comfortable with us holding off on any filing/serving until we both have guidance, and keeping the current account structure so I can cover essentials (Zepbound + living expenses) with transparency and a simple periodic breakdown?
```


text: let's not ask about "numbers don't support that long term" and let's not say "in the meantime".  let's mention that i spoke with Jennifer and if she agrees- i'll start the process.  warn her that the process is expensive (her deposit is $3500 and it was the lowest of the three.)


text:
```text
Lisa — thank you for thinking about this and for being open to pacing it thoughtfully. I agree that regardless of timing, we need a workable month-to-month structure during the transition.

I spoke with Jennifer Rench today, and if you’re comfortable with me moving forward, I’ll start the process on my side. One practical note: it’s expensive. Her retainer is 3500, and that was the lowest of the three collaborative attorneys I spoke with.

I’m glad you’re going to talk with a lawyer as well about legal separation and how an interim structure could be set up.
```


text: send it.


text:
Preview (dry-run) ready. Exact text:

```text
Lisa — thank you for thinking about this and for being open to pacing it thoughtfully. I agree that regardless of timing, we need a workable month-to-month structure during the transition.

I spoke with Jennifer Rench today, and if you’re comfortable with me moving forward, I’ll start the process on my side. One practical note: it’s expensive. Her retainer is 3500, and that was the lowest of the three collaborative attorneys I spoke with.

I’m glad you’re going to talk with a lawyer as well about legal separation and how an interim structure could be set up.
```

Reply `send exactly this` and I’ll send it.


text: send exactly this


text: Sent to Lisa exactly as previewed.


text: i'd also like to ask her about my suggestion of the postnuptual agreement.  it's 30% of allowance (plus an additional life insurance policy).  i believe it to be fair.  and i believe it will be close to what we eventually land on - and if that's the case, we can save a lot of money on the negotiation.


text:
```text
Lisa — one more thought on the financial structure, mainly to save time and legal expense.

Earlier I floated a postnuptial-style agreement: 30% of the allowance payments to me (plus an additional life insurance policy as a backstop). I believe that’s fair, and I suspect it’s close to where we may land anyway. If you think it’s in the right ballpark, we could hand that to counsel as a starting point and potentially save a lot of negotiation.

Would you be open to exploring that?
```


text: perfect.  send it.


text:
Preview (dry-run) ready. Exact text:

```text
Lisa — one more thought on the financial structure, mainly to save time and legal expense.

Earlier I floated a postnuptial-style agreement: 30% of the allowance payments to me (plus an additional life insurance policy as a backstop). I believe that’s fair, and I suspect it’s close to where we may land anyway. If you think it’s in the right ballpark, we could hand that to counsel as a starting point and potentially save a lot of negotiation.

Would you be open to exploring that?
```

Reply `send exactly this` and I’ll send it.


text: no, add one more line, something like   - i would be happy to explain my thinking if you like


text:
Preview (dry-run) updated. Exact text:

```text
Lisa — one more thought on the financial structure, mainly to save time and legal expense.

Earlier I floated a postnuptial-style agreement: 30% of the allowance payments to me (plus an additional life insurance policy as a backstop). I believe that’s fair, and I suspect it’s close to where we may land anyway. If you think it’s in the right ballpark, we could hand that to counsel as a starting point and potentially save a lot of negotiation.

Would you be open to exploring that? I’d be happy to explain my thinking if you’d like.
```

Reply `send exactly this` and I’ll send it.


text: you should probably prepare a reply explaining my (our) thinking.


text:
Here’s a ready-to-send reply explaining the thinking (saved at `.Jimmy/outbound/2026-02-24_lisa_postnup_explain_thinking.txt`):

```text
Lisa — happy to share the thinking behind the 30% + life insurance idea, so you know where I’m coming from.

The big constraint is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t solve this by “splitting” the corpus.

For most of our marriage, I assumed the inheritance would function like something we could both plan around long-term. Because of that, I didn’t build retirement savings of my own, and at 56 I have no meaningful retirement.

So I’m looking for a clean, predictable way to equalize long-term security without touching the corpus. A percentage of the allowance stream is the only lever that actually moves.

30% is intentionally simple and moderate: it leaves you and Juno with 70%, and it’s materially less than half.

The life insurance piece is just a backstop so that if something unexpected interrupts that allowance stream, I’m not suddenly without support.

If the concept feels directionally reasonable, I’d love for us to hand it to counsel as a starting point and potentially save a lot of time and legal expense.
```

If you want me to send it, say `send exactly this`.


text: can you make it longer.  mention that  it's conservative and the negotiated cost to her may end up being higher?  (but say it nicely?)


text:
```text
Lisa — happy to share the thinking behind the 30% + life insurance idea, so you know where I’m coming from.

The big constraint is that the trust corpus is locked and I’m not a beneficiary, so we can’t solve this by “splitting” the corpus or moving assets around inside the trust.

For most of our marriage, I (and I think we) assumed the inheritance would function like something we could plan around together long-term. The way it’s actually structured was a surprise, and we simply didn’t plan for it. Because of that, I didn’t build retirement savings of my own, and at 56 I have no meaningful retirement.

So I’m looking for a clean, predictable way to equalize long-term security without touching the corpus. A percentage of the allowance stream is the only lever that actually moves.

30% is intentionally conservative as a starting point: it leaves you and Juno with 70%, and it’s materially less than half. I’m not trying to “win” anything here; I’m trying to set something up that’s simple, defensible, and sustainable.

I also think there’s a practical cost angle: if we don’t start with a straightforward structure, there’s a real risk we end up spending a lot of legal time negotiating interim support and a longer-term arrangement anyway, and the eventual negotiated outcome could end up more expensive and less predictable than a clean 30% formula. I’d rather aim for something settlement-minded up front and reduce friction and fees.

The life insurance piece is just a backstop so that if something unexpected interrupts that allowance stream, I’m not suddenly without support.

If the concept feels directionally reasonable, I’d love for us to hand it to counsel as a starting point and potentially save a lot of time and legal expense.
```

If you want this sent, say `send exactly this`.


text: Sent to Lisa exactly as written.


text: how much does a $2 million life insurance policy cost (don't ask questions just guess)


text:
For a **$2M term life** policy for someone around **56**, I’d guess roughly:

- **10-year term:** **$250–$500/month**
- **20-year term:** **$500–$1,100/month**

A **permanent/whole-life** $2M policy is usually much higher (often **$2,000–$5,000+/month**).


text: what's a 10 year term mean?


text:
A **10-year term life** policy means:

- The policy lasts **10 years**.
- If you **die during those 10 years**, it pays the **death benefit** (e.g., $2M) to the beneficiary.
- If you’re **alive after 10 years**, coverage **ends** (or you can sometimes renew/convert, usually at a higher cost).


text: i'm going to live 20 years tho... to 79 you said?


text:
I didn’t mean “you’ll live to 79” (I can’t predict that). Also, **20 years from 56 is age 76**; age 79 is **23 years**.

A **10‑year term** just means the policy pays out **only if the insured dies in the next 10 years**. If you want the “backstop” to cover a longer runway, you’d typically use a:

- **20‑year term** (covers you through ~76), or
- **25‑year term** (through ~81), or
- **ladder** (e.g., $1M 20‑year + $1M 10‑year) to keep cost down while still covering the longer period.


text: i know that.  why do you insist on telling me stupid things i already know?


text:
You’re right — I over-explained and repeated basics. I was trying to be precise, but it came off condescending. I’ll stick to the delta going forward.

If what you wanted was the longer-horizon number: for a **$2M term** at **56**, I’d very roughly guess **20-year: $500–$1,100/mo**, **25-year: $700–$1,500/mo** (health/underwriting can swing it a lot).


text: maybe, to help convince her, we could create a realistic alternate that comes from the negotiating process that she would not like.


text:
Yes. Two realistic “default outcomes” if we *don’t* start with a clean formula (not as a threat, just what negotiations tend to turn into):

1. **Budget-driven interim support (messy + expensive):**
   We each produce detailed budgets, then counsel (and often a financial neutral) negotiates line-by-line: SF housing, insurance, medical, travel, “what counts,” reimbursements, true-ups, annual adjustments. It’s time-consuming, intrusive, and the professional fees add up fast.

2. **Step-down + retirement catch-up (often higher than 30% at least at first):**
   A common negotiated shape is something like: **higher bridge support for a period** (e.g., **40% of allowance for 18–24 months**) while I get stable housing/work footing, then a **lower long-term percentage** (e.g., **30% thereafter**), plus a separate **retirement equalization** component (or a defined “catch-up” period). This can easily cost more than “30% flat” and is harder to administer.

If you want a “nice” one-paragraph version to send her (only if it becomes useful), tell me and I’ll draft it.


text: pull her latest message and let's respond to its questions and include these two examples.