/ctx:fix — Auto-Reconcile Context Issues

Fix staleness and drift issues found by /ctx:check and /ctx:drift. Operates interactively: proposes each fix and waits for approval before applying.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS

• No arguments: run a full audit, then propose fixes for all issues found.
• File paths (e.g., /ctx:fix CLAUDE.md): audit and fix issues only in the named files.
• Ecosystem names (e.g., /ctx:fix serena): audit and fix issues only in files belonging to those ecosystems.
• Issue types (e.g., /ctx:fix broken, /ctx:fix versions): run a full audit but only propose fixes for the specified issue category (broken, stale, versions, contradictions, gaps, orphaned).

Instructions

First, run a full audit (/ctx) to identify all issues — scoped to the user's arguments if provided. Then work through fixes in priority order.

Fix priority

1. Broken claims (❌) — References to files, symbols, or commands that don't exist. These actively mislead agents.
2. Version mismatches — Wrong version numbers are easy to fix and high-impact.
3. Contradictions between files — Pick the authoritative source and update the others.
4. Gaps in secondary files — Where Serena/Gemini/Cursor memories are missing information that CLAUDE.md or the constitution has.
5. Orphaned planning docs — Suggest archival or deletion.

How to fix

For each fixable issue, propose the specific edit:

• Show the current text (with file path and line number)
• Show the proposed replacement
• Explain why this is the correct fix
• Ask for approval before applying

For version/path/symbol fixes: The codebase is authoritative. Update the context file to match reality.

For contradictions across files: Identify the most authoritative source (usually: constitution > CLAUDE.md > AGENTS.md > tool-specific memories > planning docs). Update less-authoritative files to match.

For orphaned docs: Propose moving to an archive/ directory or deletion. Never delete without explicit approval.

For gaps: Propose adding the missing information to the file, sourced from the most authoritative document that has it.

What NOT to auto-fix

• Architecture descriptions that might intentionally differ between tools (e.g., CLAUDE.md might include service details while a Cursor rule focuses only on code style)
• Files you can't determine the authoritative source for
• Anything that requires understanding intent rather than fact

For these, report the issue and recommend manual review.

Output

After all fixes are applied (or declined), produce a summary:

• Issues fixed
• Issues skipped (with reasons)
• Issues requiring manual review
• Updated staleness score (before → after)