Worked Examples
Three captures showing how the signals combine. Each response is a single line.
Knowledge bridge, defaults
/bridge PROJ-A → PROJ-B: observability patterns from service mesh apply directly to the atelier content structure- “patterns” matches
knowledge. Nothing more specific matches. - No
↔and no hedge or present-tense word, soone-wayandpotential. - Response:
🔗 Bridge #1: 🧠 PROJ-A → PROJ-B (knowledge) — observability patterns from service mesh apply directly to the atelier content structure
People bridge, bidirectional and active
/bridge PROJ-A ↔ PROJ-C [people]: Matthieu carries positioning context both ways and cross-pollinates priorities↔and “both ways” givebidirectional.- “carries” is present tense, so
active. - Response:
🔗 Bridge #2: 👤 PROJ-A ↔ PROJ-C (people) — Matthieu carries positioning context both ways and cross-pollinates priorities
Ambiguous archetype, hedged strength
/bridge PROJ-A → PROJ-D: maybe the way we run planning here could inform how that team works- No archetype keyword matches, so default to
knowledgeand flag it. - “maybe” is a hedge, so
theoretical, even though “could” also appears. Hedges are checked first. - Response:
🔗 Bridge #3: 🧠 PROJ-A → PROJ-D (knowledge, defaulted) — maybe the way we run planning here could inform how that team works
Direction and strength signals
| Signal in the text | Result |
|---|---|
↔, “bidirectional”, “both ways” |
direction: bidirectional |
| “maybe”, “speculative”, “in theory” | strength: theoretical |
| “already”, “happening”, “doing this”, “carries” | strength: active |
| “could”, “should”, “would”, “not yet”, “if it works”, “unlocks” | strength: potential |
| none of the above | one-way and potential |
Check in the order theoretical, active, potential. The first match decides.