BitShovel.One real problem at a time
Open the current workflowCurrent Workflow中文

One real problem at a time

中文

Q03 · PROJECT RE-ENTRY · WORKFLOW 001

How do I recover an AI project days later?

Recovery means returning to the right project, branch, open decision, and next safe move—not merely finding the last chat.

Question · first editionLast checked · 2026-08-15

Current decision

Current choice

Measure the baseline without a new tool. Add a workspace only after free methods fail repeatedly.

Open the reasoning

Speed and correctness belong together. Opening the wrong branch, stale session, or another project’s constraints in a few seconds is not better recovery.

Q03 / DECISION MAPTRIGGER → LAYERS → ONE ACTION
Recovery speed and correctness belong together. This map does not assume DevHub is the answer; the failure conditions for project records, session recovery, and a workspace follow below.

THREE RECOVERY LAYERS

Three real options

Start with the simplest method. Add a layer only where it fails.

Open the comparison boundary

The layers can work together, but each one adds update, permission, and mis-association cost.

01Project-local recordOpen conditions
Best when
Projects are few and README, NEXT.md, scripts, and commits remain current.
Cost to carry
A short, accurate next step must be left after each meaningful change.
Switch when
The record is often stale or important decisions mainly live across tool sessions.
02Built-in session recoveryOpen conditions
Best when
The project stays in one tool and session identity, search, and summaries are reliable.
Cost to carry
Recovery stops at the tool boundary, so cross-platform work repeats search and context.
Switch when
The project regularly crosses tools or returns to stale constraints and the wrong session.
03Project workspaceOpen conditions
Best when
Several projects and tools repeatedly create the same recovery cost, with a measured baseline.
Cost to carry
Another index, summary, permission, and maintenance layer can hide aggregation errors.
Switch when
It is not faster and more accurate than project records and session search, or only one narrow feature remains in use.

MY CURRENT EXPERIMENT

Why this choice

DevHub enters as something to compare—not a predetermined answer.

Open experience and reasoning

The current build starts from a project and brings sessions, tools, memory, usage, and local operations into view. A sanitized interface can show the mechanism, but bringing information together does not guarantee that the recovered context is correct.

Before comparison, I need the natural path without DevHub: where I searched, what I repeated, time to useful work, and whether the branch and constraints were correct.

What can be confirmedOpen record

DevHub has implemented project, session, tool, usage, and local-operations surfaces with sanitized demo interfaces.

What remains unknownOpen record

Whether it consistently reduces recovery time, repeated context, and cross-project mis-association—and whether external users return.

ON YOUR NEXT RETURN

What to do next

Change nothing. Record how you actually get back to work.

One real return reveals more than ten imagined features.

  1. 01

    Note time away, the previous tool, and what you intend to finish now.

  2. 02

    Record the files, sessions, terminals, branches, and scripts you open in order.

  3. 03

    Stop the timer at the first context-correct useful action.

  4. 04

    Mark repeated explanation, missing constraints, wrong branches, or cross-project information.

Continue or stop

The baseline decides whether DevHub continues, narrows, or stops.

The full Workflow places the experiment inside the tool-choice path instead of turning the product into the conclusion.

Return to the DevHub experiment in Workflow 001