Skillquality 0.45

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.

Price
free
Protocol
skill
Verified
no

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

ConditionNext skill
Root cause is inbox backloginbox-triage
Root cause is context driftopencode-context-maintenance
Vault paths inaccessible, possible config issueopencode-context-maintenance
Vault is deeply archival, needs structural redesignEscalate 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

Capabilities

skillsource-r007b34rskill-vault-health-feedbacktopic-agent-skillstopic-ai-agentstopic-ai-toolstopic-claude-code-skillstopic-digital-gardentopic-knowledge-basetopic-knowledge-managementtopic-knowledge-workflowtopic-llmtopic-mcptopic-mcp-servertopic-model-context-protocol

Install

Quality

0.45/ 1.00

deterministic score 0.45 from registry signals: · indexed on github topic:agent-skills · 6 github stars · SKILL.md body (4,641 chars)

Provenance

Indexed fromgithub
Enriched2026-05-18 13:22:59Z · deterministic:skill-github:v1 · v1
First seen2026-05-18
Last seen2026-05-18

Agent access