[codex] Clarify routed memory update scope

[tasuku-9]

Summary

• Add a routed memory rule near the top of SKILL.md so agents do not treat the memory file set as a sync checklist.
• Add read scope guidance so agents start from CONTEXT_MANIFEST.md, avoid preemptively reading the full memory set, and briefly state read scope for non-trivial work.
• Add an update scope protocol to tasks/update_memory.md requiring a short update plan before editing memory files.
• Reinforce routing and read-order guidance in templates/DOCS_GUIDE.md, templates/CONTEXT_MANIFEST.md, README.md, and templates/README.md.

Why

This makes the intended operating model explicit: project-memory should route each piece of information to its canonical home, and most sessions should read and update only the files relevant to the current task.

Validation

• python -m unittest discover -s tests -v
• git diff --check

Note: I also checked the GitHub base branch before editing; local master was aligned with origin/master.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6f76503c7d

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Require reading RECOVERY_NOTES in resume workflow

Making RECOVERY_NOTES.md optional in the resume flow can degrade restart accuracy because this file is the canonical checkpoint for where work paused; if the agent decides it is not "relevant," it may produce a restart plan from stale context or miss the latest blocker/next step. In a chat-loss or migration scenario (the exact use case of this task), skipping that checkpoint undermines the purpose of the workflow.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.