Make returning a distinct reader task
Help a returning reader recover three things: what they were trying to achieve, what they actually completed, and which decision is still open. Then check what has changed before suggesting the next action.
That is a different task from introducing your method for the first time. A reader may remember the principle but have lost the details of their attempt. Sending them back through every introductory exercise can discard useful work. Continuing an old plan without checking it can be equally unhelpful.
Design a short restart conversation into your author skill. Pair it with a portable progress note that the reader can inspect and save. The note should work as a plain document; do not make the design depend on unverified claims that a model or platform will remember every previous session.
This walkthrough uses an original fictional example: a book that teaches people to select and complete a small local-history research project. The note, conversation, and proposed checks are illustrative teaching material, not a reader trial or executed model output.
Recognize why a fresh start can be expensive
In a discussion about restarting Getting Things Done, u/GeneralistAccount described the accumulated context:
“I have 5 past GTD systems / attempts filled with info from my multiple trys at trying to maintain a GTD system.”
The writer was weighing the effort of processing old systems against the risk of losing information by starting over. That is an individual account about a particular productivity method, not evidence that every reader should recover every old note.
It raises a useful question for an author: can your companion help the reader distinguish material worth carrying forward from material that no longer belongs in the current attempt?
For the local-history example, a reader might have selected a research question, found two sources, and planned a visit. Those steps are not interchangeable. Finding a source does not mean reading it. Planning a visit does not mean the visit occurred. A restart note should preserve those distinctions.
Avoid treating the time away as a character flaw. The task is to recover a usable state. The reader may have finished elsewhere, changed priorities, lost access to a resource, or decided the project no longer matters.
End each session with a note for the next one
Offer a compact note at a natural stopping point. Ask the reader to correct it before saving it.
Here is a proposed template:
| Field | What belongs here |
|---|---|
| Current purpose | The outcome the reader currently wants |
| Method and stage | Which part of your approach they were applying |
| Completed work | Actions actually finished, with links or locations where useful |
| Working assumptions | Claims still being used provisionally |
| Open decision | The question that was not resolved |
| Next possible action | A concrete step, conditional on the assumptions remaining valid |
| Check on return | Facts likely to need confirmation |
| Note date | When the reader reviewed this account |
Keep the note shorter than the conversation it summarizes. Its job is to make the state legible, not preserve every sentence. A reader should be able to identify an inaccurate completion claim without hunting through a long transcript.
Do not include sensitive details merely because they appeared in the discussion. Use source locations or role descriptions where those are enough. Explain that the reader controls where they save and later share the note; do not invent assurances about storage or privacy beyond the actual service's policies.
Fill the note with evidence, not encouraging guesses
Suppose the fictional reader wants to write a short history of a neighborhood cinema. Their reviewed note says:
Purpose: Prepare a 600-word article for the neighborhood association about the cinema's opening year.
Stage: Narrow the question and collect the first evidence.
Completed: Chose the opening-year question. Located a newspaper index entry and a library catalogue record. Saved both references in the project document.
Not completed: Have not read the newspaper item or examined the catalogue material.
Working assumption: The association still wants the article for its next issue.
Open decision: Which source should be examined first?
Next possible action: Check access to the newspaper item before arranging a visit.
Check on return: Article deadline, source access, and whether the question still fits the assignment.
Notice how little historical content the note contains. It does not invent the opening year or suggest the sources corroborate each other. It records what the reader has done and what remains unknown.
The method's current stage matters because it constrains the next recommendation. A companion should not jump to drafting a confident history when the reader has only located references. It can help plan the next evidence-gathering step.
If a generated note says “researched the cinema's opening” when the reader only searched a catalogue, correct that before saving it. Otherwise, a convenient summary becomes a source of false confidence at the next session.
Start the return with confirmation
A reader returns several weeks later and pastes the note. The companion's first response could be:
Your note says you selected the opening-year question and located two references, but had not examined either source. Is that still accurate? Has the association's deadline or requested topic changed?
This is a proposed response, not a claim about an existing feature. It offers a specific account to confirm instead of asking the reader to retell everything.
Suppose the reader replies:
I read the newspaper item, but it only announced a planned opening. The article deadline has moved, and the editor now wants a short piece about how the building was used over time.
The correct continuation is not the old next action. The purpose and evidence state have both changed. The companion should update the note, explain which earlier work remains useful, and help the reader decide whether to narrow the new question.
A useful response might be:
The newspaper reference may still help with the building's early history, but it does not establish an actual opening date from what you described. The new assignment is broader. Before collecting more sources, choose the period you can cover in the available space. Do you want to propose a narrower period to the editor or revise the research question together?
The old work survives as a reference. The old conclusion was never established, and the old plan no longer controls the project.
Sort the recovered context before adding work
Use a simple return check:
| Recovered item | Reader confirms | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose still matters | Yes | Keep it as the current target |
| Work was completed outside the chat | Yes, with a description | Update the record and inspect any relevant evidence |
| Assumption has changed | Yes | Reconsider dependent steps before proceeding |
| Item is no longer relevant | Yes | Set it aside without treating it as unfinished debt |
| Reader is unsure | Unknown | Mark uncertainty and identify the smallest useful check |
This protects the reader from two extremes: carrying every abandoned idea forward and deleting useful material simply because it is old.
Let the reader make the relevance decision. The companion can point out dependencies, but it should not silently erase an unresolved commitment or decide that an old goal is worthless. For a personal project, setting something aside can be an appropriate conclusion.
Provide a route for readers without a note
Not everyone will save the progress note. A returning reader should still be able to say, “I stopped using this and cannot remember where I was.”
Ask three recovery questions, one at a time if that is easier:
- What are you trying to accomplish now?
- What, if anything, have you already produced or tried?
- What is the next thing you cannot confidently decide?
Use their answers to find the current stage. Do not claim to remember work that is not present in the conversation or available records. If the reader provides an old draft, inspect it against the current purpose rather than assuming it remains the right assignment.
The goal is a sufficiently accurate restart, not a perfect reconstruction of the past. In the cinema example, the reader might remember only that they saved two references. Helping them locate or identify those references may be more useful than asking them to repeat the whole research lesson.
Test whether the note survives a real return
A progress note is a proposal to test, not a universal cure for interrupted work. u/Rex_orci-1 described having already tried notes:
“I've tried end-of-session notes. I've tried keeping a status doc per project. None of it holds up consistently enough to matter.”
That account does not show that notes never help. It does caution against declaring the problem solved when your companion merely produces a summary.
Test the actual return path. Can the reader find the note? Does it distinguish completed work from plans? Can they spot a stale assumption? Does the companion change course when the purpose changes? Can someone return without the note and still get a sensible next step?
Retain the observed difficulties rather than measuring success only by whether a note was generated. If the note is accurate but impossible to find later, changing its wording may not address the problem. If readers routinely correct its status claims, inspect how those claims were produced.
The agent skill testing guide provides a broader structure for these checks. Your return cases should include unchanged context, changed goals, completed work outside the chat, and missing history.
Bring a sample progress note and one restart scenario to Skillfully and choose Book onboarding. They make a useful starting point for a companion that can help readers continue thoughtfully after time away.