Amp thread lost context after compaction?

Amp can compact long threads automatically, but a compacted thread is still a summary of prior work. If a decision, failed path, or verification result disappears, rebuild the next thread from the project state instead of trusting a larger transcript.

Preserve first: Compare the compacted summary with the actual diff and verification output. Write down the specific decision or failed approach that went missing before starting a focused continuation thread.

Match the failure before retrying.

Context reached the compaction boundary

Amp documents automatic compaction when a thread approaches its context limit. The thread can continue, but earlier detail is represented through a compacted summary.

The new turn forgot a middle decision

Amp has documented that giant prompts can overweight the beginning and end while missing information in the middle. Treat missing detail as a retrieval problem, not proof that the decision never existed.

The thread became broad and expensive

Amp recommends focused threads because long, meandering conversations cost more and often perform worse. Split the next action from the historical discussion.

Safe recovery path.

Capture git status, git diff, changed files, the last test output, and any decision that the next turn must not reverse.

Start a focused Amp thread for one goal. Mention the earlier thread only as a source, not as the sole source of truth.

Give the new thread the exact files, constraints, rejected approaches, and next verification command.

Re-run the smallest decisive check before accepting any carried-forward claim such as tests passed.

What the next AI should receive.

Carry the omitted constraint, relevant thread reference, current diff, acceptance criteria, and command-backed verification. Mark summary-only claims as unverified rather than treating compaction as an evidence source.

How ShardStitch works with Amp.

ShardStitch builds a compact, trust-labeled packet from the project and available local state. Amp receives verified files and Git facts separately from inferred claims, so compaction cannot silently promote an old summary into evidence.

Source trail.

Amp evidence distinguishes thread continuation from the guidance available to a fresh run.

FAQ.

Does compaction erase changes already saved to files?

A missing detail in a summary is not evidence that project files were lost. Inspect the files and Git diff independently, then restore the omitted decision or constraint in the continuation.

Should I paste the entire old Amp thread back in?

Prefer the specific missing context and relevant thread references alongside verified project state. Repeating an oversized transcript can obscure the exact constraint you need to restore.

Scope note: Amp changes quickly. This guide addresses context and continuation quality, not a claim that every compacted Amp thread loses information.