Yes, this is remarkably good!
I think it might have been simpler to give the AI a new Tinderbox document with just the Hints folder, ask it to do its readings, and then have it construct the primer in that file. But generating a new Tinderbox document is perfectly reasonable — Les Carr of Southampton used to do a lot of this.
Thanks. Given this, I can confirm there is a glitch if the feature. Tinderbox fails to detect/correctly parse a @ or # if they occur the start of the $Name string (position 0). As such, I won’t update aTbRef telling people to avoid placing these symbols at the beginning of the string, assuming this is a minor fix that can go in the next release.
I like the current approach as I get both the markdown files and the tinderbox file. I am sure if I give Cursor an empty Tinderbox file, may be with one note to start, it would manage as well. I learned a lot by this simple exercise. I also asked Cursor, what makes Tinderbox unique. I am sure you know. I renamed the markdown file to a txt file so that I am able to upload it here.
Thanks, this is very interesting!
I am surprised at the limited understanding of the range of Tinderbox’s views. My hunch is most compared apps have one/few views and those are of a core hierarchy/graph form and this confuses the AI. I do wonder if the AI understands that Map view isn’t a pure graph but a spatial hypertext. Hyperbolic view would be a better graph comparison. Quite why the Table view gets more prominence than the more powerful Attribute Browser view is also a head-scratcher.
The document is useful in that it shows some impressive synthesis but a less impressive understanding of detail. But if the need is high level overview it’s not too bad.
That’s an interesting competitive analysis. It gets a lot right about the ecosystem and the engineering issues.
Could you share that Python script?