vault-health-feedback

Diagnose whether an Obsidian knowledge workflow produces cognitive return or is becoming a passive archive. Load when vault feels archival or dead. Do NOT use for inbox triage, link review, synthesis,

SKILL.md

GitHub

vault-health-feedback

Constraints

  • NEVER scan whole vault; sample strategically
  • NEVER give more than 3 recommendations
  • Check layers in order: workflow -> cognitive -> structural
  • NEVER equate structural mess with system failure (check workflow first)
  • NEVER repair, move, or restructure without explicit confirmation

Trigger Boundary

Use when: vault feels archival, knowledge not returning, system health diagnosis needed, highest-leverage repair unclear, user says "vault is dead" or "nothing comes back."

Do NOT use for:

  • Inbox routing -> inbox-triage
  • Recent-note relationships -> connection-review
  • Week-level synthesis -> weekly-synthesis
  • Direct restructuring before diagnosis
  • Promoting material -> note-promotion

Boundaries

  • Owns: workflow health diagnosis, cognitive return assessment, structural friction detection
  • Delegates to: inbox-triage (root cause is inbox backlog), opencode-context-maintenance (root cause is context drift)
  • Never absorbs: inbox routing, relationship analysis, synthesis, promotion, direct restructuring

Continuations

Condition Next skill
Root cause is inbox backlog inbox-triage
Root cause is context drift opencode-context-maintenance
Vault paths inaccessible, possible config issue opencode-context-maintenance
Vault is deeply archival, needs structural redesign Escalate to human

Companion Skill

All vault operations follow obsidian-mcp. Forbidden: obsidian_patch_note, obsidian_append_to_note. Verify every write through readback.

Procedure

Phase 1: Workflow Layer (always check first)

When assessing health metrics, read references/examples.md.

  1. obsidian_list_notes path:"Inbox/" -> inbox freshness (items, age)
  2. obsidian_search_notes query:"type: synthesis" -> synthesis frequency
  3. Check for recent triage/review/promotion activity
  4. Score: active / stale / dead

Phase 2: Cognitive Layer (only if workflow is active or stale)

  1. Sample 5-10 recent notes for reuse signals (links back, references)
  2. Check if themes recur across time windows
  3. Look for notes that were never revisited after creation
  4. Score: returning value / flat / declining

Phase 3: Structural Layer (only if cognitive layer shows issues)

  1. Check for orphan zones, hollow clusters, tag noise
  2. Identify fragmentation patterns
  3. Score: clean / messy but functional / blocking workflow

Phase 4: Recommend

When formatting diagnosis, read references/templates.md.

1-3 highest-leverage interventions, ranked. Report what NOT to do now.

<details> <summary>Health Metrics Thresholds (expand for quantitative reference)</summary>

Workflow layer:

  • Inbox items >30 days old = stale signal
  • Synthesis frequency <1 per month = workflow gap
  • No triage activity in 2+ weeks = dead workflow

Cognitive layer:

  • Reuse rate <10% of notes ever linked-to = cognitive concern
  • No note revisited within 30 days of creation = flat return
  • Themes never recur across windows = no compounding

Structural layer:

  • Orphan rate >40% unlinked notes = structural concern
  • Tag entropy >50 tags with <3 uses each = noise
  • Folder depth >4 with <2 notes per leaf = over-organization

Severity ranking:

  • Dead workflow > declining cognitive > structural blocking
  • Stale workflow > flat cognitive > messy structural
  • Active workflow with messy structure = healthy (do not intervene)
</details> ## Gotchas

Gotcha 1: Starting from structure

What happens: Agent counts orphans and messy folders first Why it is wrong: Structural mess may be irrelevant if workflow is healthy Correct approach: Always check workflow -> cognitive -> structural in order

Gotcha 2: Too many recommendations

What happens: Agent gives 5-7 improvement suggestions Why it is wrong: No execution focus; user is overwhelmed Correct approach: Maximum 3 interventions, ranked by leverage

Gotcha 3: Diagnosis becomes cleanup

What happens: Agent starts moving/renaming/restructuring during diagnosis Why it is wrong: Unauthorized modification; diagnosis should inform, not act Correct approach: Report findings, recommend interventions, wait for confirmation

Validators (CI only, not runtime)

  • validators/pre-check.sh: Confirms vault is accessible for sampling
  • validators/post-check.sh: Verifies <=3 recommendations and layer order respected

Exit Criteria

  • No more than 3 recommendations
  • Every risk signal has evidence
  • Layers checked in order (workflow -> cognitive -> structural)
  • No repair executed without confirmation