name: context-ingestion
description: "Gather and organize context from multiple sources into a structured format. Handles documents, URLs, conversations, and notes. Produces a verified source registry and compiled context corpus ready for downstream analysis."
phase: INIT
category: specialized
version: "2.0.0"
depends_on: []
tags: [planning, research, intake, sources, information-gathering]

Context Ingestion

Gather and organize context from multiple sources into a structured format.

When to Use

• New proposal or project kickoff -- Need to collect and structure background information before analysis begins
• Client or domain onboarding -- Entering unfamiliar territory and need to build a knowledge base quickly
• Research intake -- Multiple documents, links, or conversations need to be cataloged and made searchable
• Scattered source material -- Information exists across different formats and locations, needs consolidation
• Pre-analysis preparation -- Downstream skills (context-cultivation, priority-matrix) need a clean, structured input
• When you say: "gather context", "collect sources", "ingest this", "pull together the background", "what do we know?"

Reference Requirements

MUST read before applying this skill:

Read if applicable:

Verification: Ensure CONTEXT-SOURCES.md contains at least one entry per source provided, each with a completed metadata block and reliability rating.

Required Deliverables

Core Concept

Context Ingestion answers: "What do we know, where did it come from, and how reliable is it?"

Context ingestion is:
- Systematic -- Every source is processed through the same evaluation and extraction pipeline
- Traceable -- Every fact in the compiled output links back to a specific source
- Evaluative -- Sources are rated for reliability, recency, and relevance, not treated as equally valid
- Comprehensive -- Actively seeks breadth across source types to avoid blind spots
- Non-interpretive -- Captures what sources say without adding analysis (that is context-cultivation's job)

Context ingestion is NOT:
- Analysis or synthesis (that is context-cultivation)
- Priority setting or ranking (that is priority-matrix)
- Proposal writing (that is proposal-builder)
- Making recommendations based on what was found
- Summarizing to the point of losing source fidelity

The Context Ingestion Process

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    CONTEXT INGESTION PROCESS                     │
│                                                                  │
│  1. SOURCE DISCOVERY                                             │
│     └─> Inventory all available and findable sources             │
│                                                                  │
│  2. SOURCE TRIAGE                                                │
│     └─> Evaluate relevance and reliability, prioritize intake    │
│                                                                  │
│  3. CONTENT EXTRACTION                                           │
│     └─> Pull structured content from each source type            │
│                                                                  │
│  4. METADATA TAGGING                                             │
│     └─> Attach provenance, dates, authors, reliability scores    │
│                                                                  │
│  5. DEDUPLICATION & CROSS-REFERENCING                            │
│     └─> Identify overlaps, flag contradictions                   │
│                                                                  │
│  6. REGISTRY ASSEMBLY                                            │
│     └─> Build CONTEXT-SOURCES.md with full metadata              │
│                                                                  │
│  7. CORPUS COMPILATION                                           │
│     └─> Build RAW-CONTEXT.md organized by topic and source       │
│                                                                  │
│  8. COMPLETENESS CHECK                                           │
│     └─> Verify coverage, flag gaps, log decisions                │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Step 1: Source Discovery

Identify every available source before processing any of them. Cast a wide net.

Source Inventory Checklist

- [ ] User-provided documents (PDFs, Word docs, slides, spreadsheets)
- [ ] URLs and web pages explicitly shared
- [ ] Conversation transcripts or chat logs
- [ ] Meeting notes or recordings
- [ ] Freeform notes or braindumps
- [ ] Existing project files (README, specs, prior proposals)
- [ ] Codebase context (if technical project)
- [ ] Email threads or correspondence
- [ ] Competitor or market materials
- [ ] Regulatory or compliance documents

Discovery Strategies

Source Discovery Output

### Source Inventory

| # | Source Name | Type | Status | Notes |
|---|------------|------|--------|-------|
| 1 | Client brief.pdf | Document | Pending extraction | Primary input |
| 2 | https://example.com/about | URL | Pending fetch | Company background |
| 3 | Kickoff call notes | Conversation | Pending extraction | Key decisions made |
| 4 | Competitor analysis spreadsheet | Document | Pending extraction | Market context |
| 5 | [GAP] Technical requirements | Unknown | Not yet provided | Need to request |

Step 2: Source Triage

Not all sources deserve equal attention. Evaluate before extracting.

Reliability Assessment

Rate each source on a 1-5 scale across three dimensions:

Composite Reliability Score

Reliability = (Authority + Recency + Specificity) / 3
  5.0 - 4.0  =  HIGH    -->  Extract fully, high confidence
  3.9 - 2.5  =  MEDIUM  -->  Extract selectively, note caveats
  2.4 - 1.0  =  LOW     -->  Extract key claims only, flag uncertainty

Triage Priority Matrix

Red Flags During Triage

Watch for sources that require extra scrutiny:

• Undated material -- Cannot assess recency; flag and note
• Promotional content -- May overstate capabilities; cross-reference claims
• Single-source claims -- Important facts backed by only one source; note as unverified
• Contradicting sources -- Two sources disagree on facts; capture both, flag for resolution
• Stale technical content -- Technology references that may be outdated; verify currency

Step 3: Content Extraction

Apply source-type-specific extraction patterns to pull structured content.

Extraction by Source Type

Extraction Template

For each source, produce a block following this format:

### [Source Name]

**Source ID:** SRC-001
**Type:** Document | URL | Conversation | Notes | Code | Data
**Reliability:** HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW (score: X.X)
**Extracted:** [date]

#### Key Content

[Extracted content organized by topic. Use direct quotes for important
statements. Paraphrase for general context. Always attribute.]

#### Notable Claims

- [Specific factual claim from the source]
- [Another claim worth tracking]

#### Open Questions

- [Questions raised by this source]
- [Ambiguities that need clarification]

Extraction Quality Rules

Step 4: Metadata Tagging

Every source entry gets a complete metadata block. Consistent metadata enables filtering, sorting, and tracing.

Standard Metadata Schema

---
source_id: SRC-001
title: "Client Requirements Brief"
type: document
format: pdf
author: "Jane Smith, VP Product"
organization: "Acme Corp"
date_created: 2025-11-15
date_accessed: 2026-01-25
reliability: 4.2
authority: 5
recency: 4
specificity: 4
word_count: 3200
topics: [requirements, timeline, budget, integrations]
related_sources: [SRC-003, SRC-007]
contradicts: []
status: extracted
notes: "Primary input document. Contains both requirements and constraints."
---

Required vs Optional Metadata

Step 5: Deduplication and Cross-Referencing

After extraction, identify overlaps and build connections between sources.

Deduplication Rules

Cross-Reference Matrix

Build a topic-to-source matrix to visualize coverage:

### Cross-Reference Matrix

| Topic | SRC-001 | SRC-002 | SRC-003 | SRC-004 | Coverage |
|-------|---------|---------|---------|---------|----------|
| Budget | X | | X | | 2 sources |
| Timeline | X | X | | | 2 sources |
| Tech stack | | | X | X | 2 sources |
| User needs | X | X | X | | 3 sources |
| Competitors | | | | X | 1 source |
| Compliance | | | | | 0 -- GAP |

Topics with 0-1 sources should be flagged as potential gaps.

Step 6: Registry Assembly

Compile CONTEXT-SOURCES.md as the authoritative source registry.

CONTEXT-SOURCES.md Template

# Context Sources Registry

**Project:** [Project name]
**Ingestion Date:** [Date]
**Total Sources:** [Count]
**Source Types:** [Breakdown by type]

## Summary Statistics

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total sources | [N] |
| High reliability | [N] |
| Medium reliability | [N] |
| Low reliability | [N] |
| Unique topics covered | [N] |
| Identified gaps | [N] |

## Source Registry

### SRC-001: [Title]

- **Type:** [type]
- **Author:** [author]
- **Date:** [date]
- **Reliability:** [score] ([HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW])
- **Topics:** [topic1, topic2, topic3]
- **Related:** [SRC-NNN, SRC-NNN]
- **Summary:** [One-line description of what this source contributes]

### SRC-002: [Title]

[Same format...]

## Coverage Map

[Cross-reference matrix from Step 5]

## Identified Gaps

| Gap | Impact | Suggested Action |
|-----|--------|-----------------|
| [Missing topic] | [How this affects downstream work] | [How to fill it] |

Step 7: Corpus Compilation

Build RAW-CONTEXT.md as the organized content corpus, structured for consumption by context-cultivation.

RAW-CONTEXT.md Template

# Raw Context Corpus

**Project:** [Project name]
**Compiled:** [Date]
**Sources:** [Count] (see CONTEXT-SOURCES.md for full registry)

## How to Read This Document

Content is organized by topic. Each section draws from one or more
sources, identified by source ID (e.g., SRC-001). Direct quotes are
in blockquotes. Paraphrased content is in plain text.

---

## Topic: [Topic Name]

**Sources:** SRC-001, SRC-003, SRC-007

### From SRC-001 (Client Brief, reliability: HIGH)

[Extracted content relevant to this topic]

> "Direct quote from the source when precision matters" (p.12)

### From SRC-003 (Meeting Notes, reliability: MEDIUM)

[Extracted content relevant to this topic]

**Note:** This partially contradicts SRC-001 regarding [specific point].
See INGESTION-LOG.md for details.

---

## Topic: [Next Topic]

[Same structure...]

---

## Unclassified Content

[Content that does not fit neatly into a topic but may be relevant.
Tag with source ID for traceability.]

Organization Principles

Step 8: Completeness Check

Before marking ingestion as complete, verify coverage and quality.

Completeness Checklist

## Ingestion Completeness Review

### Source Coverage
- [ ] All provided sources have been processed
- [ ] Each source has a complete metadata block in CONTEXT-SOURCES.md
- [ ] Each source has extracted content in RAW-CONTEXT.md
- [ ] Source IDs are consistent across all documents

### Quality Checks
- [ ] Reliability scores assigned to every source
- [ ] No placeholder or stub entries remain
- [ ] Contradictions between sources are flagged
- [ ] Direct quotes are accurately attributed
- [ ] Quantitative data (dates, numbers, metrics) verified against source

### Coverage Analysis
- [ ] Cross-reference matrix is complete
- [ ] Gaps are identified and documented
- [ ] Gap impact and suggested actions provided
- [ ] Topics with single-source coverage flagged for attention

### Downstream Readiness
- [ ] RAW-CONTEXT.md is organized by topic (not by source)
- [ ] Content is sufficient for context-cultivation to begin
- [ ] INGESTION-LOG.md documents any decisions or anomalies (if applicable)

Coverage Threshold

Output Formats

Quick Format (3 or fewer sources)

# Context Sources

**Project:** [Name]
**Date:** [Date]

## Sources

### SRC-001: [Title]
- **Type:** [type] | **Reliability:** [score]
- **Key content:** [2-3 sentence summary]

### SRC-002: [Title]
- **Type:** [type] | **Reliability:** [score]
- **Key content:** [2-3 sentence summary]

## Compiled Context

### [Topic 1]
[Combined content from sources, attributed by SRC-ID]

### [Topic 2]
[Combined content from sources, attributed by SRC-ID]

## Gaps
- [Any missing information noted]

Full Format (4+ sources)

Use the complete CONTEXT-SOURCES.md and RAW-CONTEXT.md templates from Steps 6 and 7, with:
- Full metadata blocks for every source
- Cross-reference matrix
- INGESTION-LOG.md for processing decisions
- Completeness checklist executed and documented

Common Patterns

The Deep Dive

Process a small number of highly detailed sources with maximum extraction depth. Every section, every data point, every claim is captured and tagged.

Use when: Working with 1-3 dense, authoritative documents (e.g., an RFP, a technical specification, a regulatory filing).

The Wide Sweep

Process many sources at moderate depth, prioritizing breadth of coverage over extraction completeness. Focus on key claims and unique contributions from each source.

Use when: Onboarding to a new domain with 10+ heterogeneous sources (e.g., market research, competitor sites, internal docs, meeting notes).

The Conversation Harvest

Extract structured information from unstructured dialogue -- meetings, chat logs, interviews. Focus on decisions, action items, stated preferences, and unanswered questions.

Use when: Primary inputs are conversations, calls, or informal exchanges rather than polished documents.

The Incremental Build

Start with an initial source set, process it, then add new sources as they arrive. Each addition triggers a targeted update to the registry and corpus rather than a full reprocessing.

Use when: Sources arrive over time rather than all at once (e.g., ongoing client engagement, rolling research).

Relationship to Other Skills

Key Principles

Provenance is non-negotiable. Every piece of extracted content must trace back to a specific source via its SRC-ID. Untraceable claims are unreliable claims.

Evaluate before you extract. Triage saves time. A low-relevance, low-reliability source processed at full depth is wasted effort. Assess first, then calibrate extraction depth.

Structure enables downstream work. The value of ingestion is not in the reading -- it is in organizing content so that context-cultivation, priority-matrix, and proposal-builder can work efficiently.

Gaps are findings, not failures. Discovering what is missing is as valuable as capturing what is present. Always document gaps with their impact and a suggested path to fill them.

Preserve fidelity, defer interpretation. Capture what sources actually say, in their own words when it matters. Interpretation, synthesis, and judgment belong to downstream skills.

Contradictions are signals. When sources disagree, do not resolve the conflict -- surface it. Contradictions often point to the most important areas for further investigation.

References

• references/source-evaluation.md: Detailed criteria for assessing source authority, recency, and specificity
• references/extraction-patterns.md: Source-type-specific extraction templates and techniques
• references/metadata-schema.md: Extended metadata fields for domain-specific ingestion
• references/deduplication-rules.md: Rules for handling overlapping and duplicate content
• references/url-fetch-guidelines.md: Best practices for web content extraction at scale