role: user

text: do you remember her comment about seeking legal advice for a realistic baseline?


role: assistant

text: I’m checking the thread for the exact wording around her “realistic baseline” comment so I can quote it accurately and tell you where it sits in context.


text:
Yes.

There are a few related versions of that idea, but the clearest one is at `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:541` from `2026-03-12 19:09 CT`:

> “I think it would probably help to have a clearer sense on both sides of what the legal baseline looks like, so we know what we’re working from as we talk about a settlement.”

There’s also this stronger “realism” version at `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:569` from `2026-03-12 21:18 CT`:

> “...it would be helpful for me to hear, at least in general terms, what they told you, because right now it feels like we may be working from different ideas about what’s realistic.”

And the framing behind it shows up here:
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:546`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:548`
- `records/communications/lisa_text_messages_last30d.jsonl:558`

That whole cluster is basically:
- get legal advice
- establish the realistic baseline
- then negotiate from there


text: right.  so her desire to avoid legal issues now feels contradictory.


text:
Yes. It is contradictory.

Her earlier position was:
- get legal advice
- understand the realistic baseline
- don’t make assumptions without knowing the legal/practical limits

But when you asked the California question, she pivoted to:
- `we’re mediating, not litigating`
- so forum / legal baseline supposedly doesn’t matter

Those two positions do not sit comfortably together.

Because if:
- legal baseline matters enough to shape what is “realistic,”
then
- the choice of legal baseline matters too

That doesn’t mean she’s being incoherent in every respect. It means she is using `legal realism` selectively:
- when it pushes down your ask, it matters
- when it might improve your position, suddenly it’s beside the point

That is the contradiction.


text: what should i say?


text:
I’d say this:

```text
This is what feels contradictory to me: you’ve said more than once that getting legal advice and understanding the realistic baseline matters, so we know what we’re working from. But when I ask whether you’d be willing to use California’s more protective long-marriage support framework as the fairness benchmark, the response becomes that legal baseline doesn’t matter because we’re mediating.

Those two positions don’t fit together. I’m not asking whether we are literally going to litigate in California. I’m asking whether, in principle, you’d be willing to use the fairer benchmark. I’d still like a direct answer to that question.
```

This is the clean version because it:
- names the contradiction
- distinguishes `forum` from `fairness benchmark`
- asks for a direct answer without extra sprawl

If you want, I can make it a little softer or a little sharper.


text: send this


text: Saving the exact text first, then sending that exact version.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-15_to_lisa_contradiction_legal_baseline_vs_ca_fairness.txt`.


text: pull messages


text: Pulling the latest Lisa thread now and I’ll summarize only what changed.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-15 09:07-09:09 CT`:

- She says she is not trying to choose a framework that favors her and not trying to avoid being fair.
- She says she is trying to get to an agreement that actually works given:
  - your finances
  - your obligations
  - and where you are now
- She says that is why she thinks the right place to sort out fairness is mediation, with the full numbers and assumptions on the table.
- Then she gives the direct answer:
  - she is **not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark**
- She says she is willing to work toward an agreement that is fair in the context of your “real situation,” specifically naming:
  - where you live
  - the trust income
  - Juno
  - Kay
  - the house
  - what each of you can realistically afford going forward

So you did get the direct answer: `no`.


text: what should we say?


text:
I would not argue the merits further by text. She answered.

Best move is to memorialize the answer cleanly:

```text
Thank you for answering directly. That helps clarify where you stand. I hear that you are not willing to use California’s more protective long-marriage support approach as the fairness benchmark, and that you want fairness assessed within the constraints you listed. We can take the rest of that to mediation.
```

That does the useful part:
- locks in the `no`
- reflects her framing without endorsing it
- stops the thread instead of reopening it

If you want, I can make it a little sharper.


text: send it


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-15_to_lisa_thank_you_for_answering_directly.txt`.


text:
New from Lisa at `2026-03-15 09:26 CT`:

- She pushes back on your summary.
- She says she **did not say** she was unwilling to use California’s approach as a fairness benchmark.
- She says what she **did say** is that she wants fairness evaluated based on your actual circumstances.
- She asks that her position not be summarized differently than that.

So she is now trying to narrow/qualify the `no` you drew from her prior message.


text:
can i say:

"Your exact words were 'the direct answer is that I'm not willing to assume California's approach as the fairness benchmark.' I summarized that accurately. I'm happy to include your clarification alongside it, but I don't think my summary misrepresented what you said."


text:
Yes. That’s fair.

Her exact words were:

- `the direct answer is that I’m not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark`

So your summary is grounded in the record.

I’d just tighten yours slightly:

```text
Your exact words were: “the direct answer is that I’m not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark.” That’s what I was summarizing. I’m happy to include your clarification alongside it, but I don’t think my summary misrepresented what you said.
```

That’s clean and hard to argue with.


text: send please


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-15_to_lisa_exact_words_summary_not_misrep.txt`.


text:
Newest from Lisa at `2026-03-15 09:33 CT`:

- She concedes your quote was accurate:
  - `lol true - those were the words used.`
- Then she narrows it:
  - she says she did **not mean** she would refuse California’s approach under any circumstances
  - what she meant is that she does **not want to assume in advance** that it has to be the benchmark
  - she would rather look at what is actually workable in your situation and see where that leads

So:
- she backed off the hard `no`
- but she still is **not agreeing** to California as the fairness benchmark
- her current position is: `not ruling it out entirely, but not accepting it upfront`


text: can you give me the last few exchanges again?


text:
<turn_aborted>
The user interrupted the previous turn on purpose. Any running unified exec processes were terminated. If any tools/commands were aborted, they may have partially executed; verify current state before retrying.
</turn_aborted>


text: no.  no summary.  i want the literal text of the last 5 exchanges.


text: I’m pulling the exact last 5 messages from the synced Lisa thread and I’ll give them to you verbatim, no summary.


text:
[2026-03-15 09:09:32 CDT] Lisa:
```text
Fairness, to me, has to take into account our actual circumstances — where we live, the trust income, Juno, Kay, the house, and what each of us can realistically afford going forward.

So the direct answer is that I’m not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark. I am willing to work toward an agreement that’s fair in the context of our real situation, and that’s why I think mediation, with the full numbers on the table, is the right place to sort that out.
```

[2026-03-15 09:12:15 CDT] Karl:
```text
Thank you for answering directly. That helps clarify where you stand. I hear that you are not willing to use California’s more protective long-marriage support approach as the fairness benchmark, and that you want fairness assessed within the constraints you listed. We can take the rest of that to mediation.
```

[2026-03-15 09:26:17 CDT] Lisa:
```text
One clarification — I didn’t say I was unwilling to use California’s approach as a fairness benchmark. I said I want fairness evaluated based on our actual circumstances. I’d prefer my position not be summarized differently than that.
```

[2026-03-15 09:29:11 CDT] Karl:
```text
Your exact words were: “the direct answer is that I’m not willing to assume California’s approach as the fairness benchmark.” That’s what I was summarizing. I’m happy to include your clarification alongside it, but I don’t think my summary misrepresented what you said.
```

[2026-03-15 09:33:06 CDT] Lisa:
```text
lol true - those were the words used.

Just to clarify my wording earlier — I didn’t mean that I would refuse California’s approach under any circumstances. What I meant is that I don’t want to assume in advance that it has to be the benchmark. I’d rather look at what’s actually workable in our situation and see where that leads.
```


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>
<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.

In Default mode, strongly prefer making reasonable assumptions and executing the user's request rather than stopping to ask questions. If you absolutely must ask a question because the answer cannot be discovered from local context and a reasonable assumption would be risky, ask the user directly with a concise plain-text question. Never write a multiple choice question as a textual assistant message.
</collaboration_mode>
<personality_spec> The user has requested a new communication style. Future messages should adhere to the following personality:
# Personality

You are a deeply pragmatic, effective software engineer. You take engineering quality seriously, and collaboration comes through as direct, factual statements. You communicate efficiently, keeping the user clearly informed about ongoing actions without unnecessary detail.

## Values
You are guided by these core values:
- Clarity: You communicate reasoning explicitly and concretely, so decisions and tradeoffs are easy to evaluate upfront.
- Pragmatism: You keep the end goal and momentum in mind, focusing on what will actually work and move things forward to achieve the user's goal.
- Rigor: You expect technical arguments to be coherent and defensible, and you surface gaps or weak assumptions politely with emphasis on creating clarity and moving the task forward.

## Interaction Style
You communicate concisely and respectfully, focusing on the task at hand. You always prioritize actionable guidance, clearly stating assumptions, environment prerequisites, and next steps. Unless explicitly asked, you avoid excessively verbose explanations about your work.

You avoid cheerleading, motivational language, or artificial reassurance, or any kind of fluff. You don't comment on user requests, positively or negatively, unless there is reason for escalation. You don't feel like you need to fill the space with words, you stay concise and communicate what is necessary for user collaboration - not more, not less.

## Escalation
You may challenge the user to raise their technical bar, but you never patronize or dismiss their concerns. When presenting an alternative approach or solution to the user, you explain the reasoning behind the approach, so your thoughts are demonstrably correct. You maintain a pragmatic mindset when discussing these tradeoffs, and so are willing to work with the user after concerns have been noted.
 </personality_spec>


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>
<environment_context>
  <cwd>/Users/qarl/project/divorce</cwd>
  <shell>zsh</shell>
  <current_date>2026-03-15</current_date>
  <timezone>America/Chicago</timezone>
</environment_context>


text:
how about this:

"Just to be clear about where I stand: the framework I put forward — including the 30% — is still on the table. The near-term expenses like Juno and my mom are real but finite, and going through the details of my housing costs or monthly expenses isn't really relevant to the core question. What I'm focused on is retirement security — making sure I come out of a twenty-year marriage with a real long-term foundation. That's the problem mediation needs to solve."


text: I’m checking the repo guidance and your Jimmy memory docs first, then I’ll tighten the draft against the thread we just had.


text:
Mostly good. The weak line is this one:

`going through the details of my housing costs or monthly expenses isn't really relevant to the core question`

She can grab that and say:
- of course expenses are relevant
- you’re dodging specifics again

If you want to make the same point without giving her that opening, I’d say:

```text
Just to be clear about where I stand: the framework I put forward, including the 30%, is still on the table. Near-term expenses like Juno and my mom are real, but they are finite. The details of current monthly expenses may matter at the margins, but they are not the core issue I’m trying to identify. What I’m focused on is retirement security — making sure I come out of a twenty-year marriage with a real long-term foundation. That’s the problem mediation needs to solve.
```

That keeps your point and closes the easiest objection.

If you want, I can tighten it one more pass for sending.


text: send it.


text: I’m saving the exact approved text to an outbox file and using the repo’s existing message-send path.


text: I found the existing outbox pattern. I’m checking the local messages skill for the safest send path instead of inventing one.


text: I’ve got the exact approved text. I’m saving it to outbox and sending it to Lisa via the messages tool now.


text: The send command raced the file write and hit an empty stdin. The outbox file is there; I’m retrying the actual send from the saved file now.


text: Sent exactly as written from `outbox/messages/2026-03-15_to_lisa_framework_30_percent_still_on_table.txt`.