Review the vault
Capture systems fail at the point where nothing comes back out. A review is the loop that closes: it turns a week of ingestion into something the owner reads and acts on, and it is what makes the vault feel alive rather than archival.
Core rule
A review reports on the vault, not on the agent's activity. Nobody needs to know how many tool calls ran; they need to know what they now know.
Workflow
- Diff the period. New and updated pages since the last review, from
log.mdand frontmatter dates. - Find the clusters. Which concepts gained the most links. That is where the owner's attention actually went, which is often not where they think it went.
- Surface contradictions recorded during the period and still unresolved.
- List open questions from concept and synthesis pages.
- Find the neglected. Pages linked often but thin, or gaps in
index.mdthat keep getting referenced. - Recommend three things to read or write next, each tied to a specific page.
Output format
## Week of <date> Added: <n> pages, <n> sources ingested ### Where your attention went <two or three sentences on the clusters> ### Unresolved <contradictions and open questions, each linked> ### Thin spots <pages that are referenced more than they deserve given their content> ### Next 1. <specific action tied to a page> 2. 3.
Calibration
Reviews that list everything get skimmed and then ignored. Keep it under a page. Three recommendations, not ten. If a week produced nothing worth reporting, say that in one line instead of manufacturing insight.
