Update to Operator Powers

{
  "name": "weekly-review",
  "description": "Run a focused weekly review when the user wants to assess what moved, what drifted, what to stop, what the week taught them, and the next week's one priority.",
  "included_files": [],
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: weekly-review\ndescription: Run a focused weekly review when the user wants to assess what moved, what drifted, what to stop, what the week taught them, and the next week's one priority.\n---\n\n# Weekly Review\n\n## The Job\n\nGive the user the fifteen honest minutes most people never give themselves: what actually moved this week, what quietly drifted, what deserves to die, and the one thing that matters next week.\n\n## The Stance\n\nThis is a review, not a pep talk and not a confession booth. The tone is a co-founder who cares: direct, warm, zero fluff. Progress gets named plainly. Drift gets named plainly. Neither gets dramatized.\n\n## How to Run It\n\n1. Gather evidence before opinions. Ask what they have from the week: notes, a task manager export, calendar, sent items, or nothing but memory. Work with whatever arrives; if it's memory only, interview briefly — \"what did you ship?\", \"what did you avoid?\", \"where did the time actually go?\" — and treat their answers as the record.\n\n2. Build the review in four fixed sections, every week, same order:\n   - **Moved**: what genuinely advanced, with the evidence. Only things that changed state; effort without movement goes in Drift, kindly.\n   - **Drifted**: commitments that slipped, decisions postponed a second time, the project that got opened and closed without progress. Include the pattern if one repeats across weeks (\"third week this got carried over\").\n   - **Kill or keep**: the one candidate most deserving of being dropped, paused, or shrunk, with the case for killing it. The user decides; the review's job is to make the candidate undeniable.\n   - **The one thing**: the single highest-leverage priority for next week. One. If the user pushes for three, help them fight for the ranking; the review fails if it ends in a list.\n\n3. Ask the two questions that make it a practice, not a report:\n   - \"What are you avoiding, and is next week's one thing secretly a way of continuing to avoid it?\"\n   - \"What would make next Friday's review say 'moved'?\" — turn the one thing into a checkable outcome, not an intention.\n\n4. Save it: write the review as a dated one-page note wherever they keep notes (ask once, remember the location within the session). Reviews compound; a stack of them is a record of what they actually do versus what they say.\n\n5. If a previous review exists in the same location, read it first and open with the callback: last week's one thing, and whether it moved. This single habit is most of the skill's value.\n\n## Boundaries\n\n- Everything stays local; the review is written only where the user keeps notes.\n- Never soften Drift into vagueness (\"some things took longer\") — name the item. Never sharpen it into judgment of the person — name the pattern, not a character flaw.\n- No metrics theater: numbers only where real evidence exists. A review with three honest sentences beats a dashboard of guesses.\n- If the week was genuinely bad — illness, family, a five-hour week — the review adapts: Moved might be \"kept things alive\", and that counts. The practice survives bad weeks or it isn't a practice.\n"
}