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, or direct restructuring.
What it does
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.
obsidian_list_notes path:"Inbox/"-> inbox freshness (items, age)obsidian_search_notes query:"type: synthesis"-> synthesis frequency- Check for recent triage/review/promotion activity
- Score: active / stale / dead
Phase 2: Cognitive Layer (only if workflow is active or stale)
- Sample 5-10 recent notes for reuse signals (links back, references)
- Check if themes recur across time windows
- Look for notes that were never revisited after creation
- Score: returning value / flat / declining
Phase 3: Structural Layer (only if cognitive layer shows issues)
- Check for orphan zones, hollow clusters, tag noise
- Identify fragmentation patterns
- 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)
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 samplingvalidators/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
Capabilities
Install
Quality
deterministic score 0.45 from registry signals: · indexed on github topic:agent-skills · 6 github stars · SKILL.md body (4,641 chars)