ThoughtDAG addresses the same issue but uses a visual approach: it searches for nodes first, then uses connections or references to determine which content enters the request. I'd love to see how it compares to writing Cypher directly, especially after conversations start branching and merging, if you get a chance to try it.

ThoughtDAG has automatic folder backups as a JSON file. So you can ask your CLI to access it and get the context in your harness tools :)

There is a way to delete a highlight. On the node side panel, there is a folded highlight section; you can manage your highlights there. Also, on your canvas, top-right ... menu, you can manage your highlights as well.

I didn't rebuild the entire tree by default, mainly because modifying earlier nodes might trigger a large number of calls and could overwrite some still valuable intermediate results. Older answers are retained as historical versions for easy comparison.

Most LLM tools (Claude Web, OpenAI, and their harness) offer re-editable questions. That is how I avoid such problems by myself.

In ThoughtDAG, you can re-edit questions by double-clicking the question. Or edit the answer by clicking the edit icon at the end of each answer text. Or.. you can just remove the connection or delete the node.

That would give you manageable context

ThoughtDAG currently deliberately leaves this strengthening and pruning to the user, rather than letting the model choose automatically (I think human-in-the-loop is important). I'm curious, in your prototype, is the path strengthened manually by the user, or is it done through model scoring or other signals?

If you have time to take another look, I'd also like to know if the differences are clear and concise enough now.

If you'd like to try it, I'd love to know if it matches your original vision of the learning method, and where it might still interrupt the process. If convenient, please share a screenshot of the anonymized canvas, an anonymous export, or a short screen recording. Seeing a real learning process would be very helpful for improving ThoughtDAG.

I also agree that Weave and Condense are easier for new users to understand than simply removing connections. The diagram can continue to serve as the underlying structure, while the sidebar answers the question more intuitively: "What content will be used in this answer?"

I also agree with your broader product criticism. If you are still willing to try the patched release, I would genuinely value both a security re-check and your thoughts on what the smallest useful editor integration should look like. Thank you again for catching this before more people installed it.

Just want to know. What would be the smallest useful integration for you: allowing the host tool to read the currently selected context, or bidirectional access so it can also create, branch, and prune nodes?

In ThoughtDAG, removing that edge excludes the detail from the next request without deleting the original branch. Thinking of this as user-directed compaction is a useful framing.

If you mean letting a Replit agent read selected graph context and write its results back as nodes, that would require an API or plugin boundary that I have not built yet. Would an embedded panel be useful, or would a simple read/write API be enough?

The fix removes shell execution from PDF rendering, strictly validates dpi, restricts browser origins, and forces the bundled desktop server to listen only on 127.0.0.1, regardless of the user’s environment. All macOS, Windows, and Linux packages have been rebuilt.

I could not find --no-sandbox in the source or build configuration. If you observed it in the AppImage process arguments or runtime behavior, I would really appreciate the reproduction details. You are also right that Linux publisher signing still needs work.

I also agree with your broader product criticism. The standalone app was the quickest way to test the interaction model end to end, but your DESIGN.md workflow points toward a more useful direction: ThoughtDAG as a context layer and viewer that existing editors and coding tools can read from and write to. If you are still willing to try the patched release, I would genuinely value both a security re-check and your thoughts on what the smallest useful editor integration should look like. Thank you again for catching this before more people installed it.