verify

## Runtime Configuration (Step 0 — before any processing) Read these files to configure domain-specific behavior: 1. **`ops/derivation-manifest.md`** — vocabulary mapping, platform hints - Use `vocabulary.notes` for the notes folder name - Use `vocabulary.note` / `vocabulary.note_plural` for note type references - Use `vocabulary.verify` for the process verb in output - Use `vocabulary.topic_map` for MOC references - Use `vocabulary.templates` for the templates folder path - Use `vocabulary.cmd_reflect` for redirect when missing connections found 2. **`ops/config.yaml`** — processing depth, verification settings - `processing.depth`: deep | standard | quick - `processing.verification.description_test`: true | false - `processing.verification.schema_check`: true | false - `processing.verification.link_check`: true | false If these files don't exist, use universal defaults. **Processing depth adaptation:** | Depth | Verification Behavior | |-------|-----------------------| | deep | Full verification: cold-read prediction, complete schema check, exhaustive link verification, MOC coverage, orphan risk analysis, content staleness detection, bundling analysis | | standard | Balanced: cold-read prediction, schema check, link verification, MOC coverage | | quick | Basic: schema check, link verification only. Skip cold-read prediction and health analysis | ## EXECUTE NOW **Target: $ARGUMENTS** Parse immediately: - If target contains a note name: verify that specific note - If target contains `--handoff`: output RALPH HANDOFF block at end - If target is "all" or "recent": verify recently created/modified notes - If target is empty: ask which note to verify ## Anti-Shortcut Warning Before marking verification as passed, you MUST complete ALL four categories: 1. COMPLETE description quality test — cold-read the title + description, predict what the note contains, compare against actual content. A description that merely restates the title FAILS. 2. COMPLETE schema validation — check ALL required fields from the template schema, verify ALL enum values are valid, confirm ALL constraints are met. A single missing required field FAILS. 3. COMPLETE link verification — confirm ALL wiki links in the note resolve to existing files. A single dangling link FAILS. 4. COMPLETE {DOMAIN:topic map} integration — verify the note appears in at least one {DOMAIN:topic map}'s Core Ideas section with a context phrase. A note with no {DOMAIN:topic map} mention FAILS. Do NOT declare success after checking only one or two categories. ALL FOUR must pass. **Execute these steps IN ORDER:** ### Step 0: INDEX FRESHNESS CHECK Before any retrieval tests, verify the semantic search index is current: 1. Try `mcp__qmd__vector_search` with a simple test query to confirm MCP availability 2. If MCP is unavailable (tool fails or returns error), try qmd CLI (`qmd status`) to confirm local CLI availability 3. If either MCP or qmd CLI is available, proceed to Step 1 4. If neither MCP nor qmd CLI is available: note "retrieval test will be deferred" and proceed — do NOT let index issues block verification The index freshness check prevents false retrieval failures on recently created notes. If the index is stale, retrieval test results should be interpreted with that context. ### Step 1: RECITE (cold-read prediction test) **CRITICAL: Do NOT read the full note yet. Only read frontmatter.** This step tests whether the title + description alone enable an agent to predict the note's content. The cold-read constraint is the entire point — reading the note first contaminates the prediction. **1. Read ONLY title + description** Use Read with a line limit to get just the first few lines of frontmatter. Extract: - Title (the filename without .md) - Description (the description field) Do NOT scroll past the frontmatter closing `---`. **2. Form prediction** Before reading further, write out what you expect: - Core argument: what claim does this note make? - Mechanism: what reasoning or evidence does it use? - Scope: what boundaries does the argument have? - Likely connections: what other notes would it reference? Write this prediction explicitly in your output. It must be specific enough to be wrong. **3. Read full note content** NOW read the complete note. Compare against your prediction. **4. Score prediction accuracy (1-5)** | Score | Meaning | Threshold | |-------|---------|-----------| | **5** | Perfect — description fully captured the argument | Pass | | **4** | Strong — minor details missed, core predicted | Pass | | **3** | Adequate — general area right, missed key aspects | Pass (minimum) | | **2** | Weak — significant mismatch between prediction and content | FAIL | | **1** | Failed — note argued something different than expected | FAIL | **Passing threshold: 3 or above.** **5. Run semantic retrieval test** Test whether the description enables semantic retrieval: - Tier 1 (preferred): `mcp__qmd__vector_search` with query = "[the note's description text]", collection = "{vocabulary.notes_collection}", limit = 10 - Tier 2 (CLI fallback): `qmd vsearch "[the note's description text]" --collection {vocabulary.notes_collection} -n 10` - Tier 3: if both MCP and qmd CLI are unavailable, report "retrieval test deferred (semantic search unavailable)" — do NOT skip silently Check where the note appears in results: - Top 3: description works well for semantic retrieval - Position 4-10: adequate but could improve - Not in top 10: flag — description may not convey the note's meaning **Why vector_search specifically:** Agents find notes via semantic search during reflect and reweave. Testing with keyword search tests the wrong retrieval method. Full hybrid search with LLM reranking compensates for weak descriptions — too lenient. vector_search tests real semantic findability without hiding bad descriptions behind reranking. **6. Draft improved description if needed** If prediction score < 3: - Diagnose the failure: too vague? missing mechanism? wrong emphasis? restates title? - Draft an improved description that would score higher - If you have Edit tool access: apply the improvement **7. Combined scoring** | Prediction Score | Retrieval Rank | Suggested Action | |------------------|----------------|------------------| | 4-5 | top 3 | Description works — no changes needed | | 3-4 | top 5 | Adequate — minor improvements possible | | 3+ | 6-10 | Investigate — passes prediction but weak retrieval | | any | not in top 10 | Flag for review — description may not enable retrieval | | < 3 | any | FAIL — description needs rewriting | ### Step 2: VALIDATE (schema check) Read the template that applies to this note type. Determine the template by checking: - Note location (e.g., {DOMAIN:notes}/ uses the standard note template) - Type field in frontmatter (if present, may indicate a specialized template) If the vault has templates with `_schema` blocks, read the `_schema` from the relevant template for authoritative field requirements. If no `_schema` exists, use the checks below as defaults. **Required fields (FAIL if missing):** | Field | Requirement | Severity | |-------|-------------|----------| | `description` | Must exist and be non-empty | FAIL | | Topics footer or `topics` field | Must reference at least one {DOMAIN:topic map} | FAIL | **Description constraints (WARN if violated):** | Constraint | Check | Severity | |------------|-------|----------| | Length | Should be ~50-200 characters | WARN | | Format | Single sentence, no trailing period | WARN | | Content | MUST add NEW information beyond title | WARN | | Semantic value | Should capture mechanism, not just topic | WARN | **How to check "adds new info":** Read the title, read the description. If the description says the same thing in different words, it fails this check. A good description adds: mechanism (how/why), scope (boundaries), implication (what follows), or context (where it applies). **YAML validity (FAIL if broken):** | Check | Rule | Severity | |-------|------|----------| | Frontmatter delimiters | Must start with `---` and close with `---` | FAIL | | Valid YAML | Must parse without errors | FAIL | | No unknown fields | Fields not in the template | WARN | **Domain-specific field enums (WARN if invalid):** If the note has fields with enumerated values (type, category, status, etc.), check them against the template's `_schema.enums` block. Each invalid enum value produces a WARN. **Relevant notes format (WARN if incorrect):** | Constraint | Check | Severity | |------------|-------|----------| | Format | Array with context: `["[[note]] -- relationship"]` | WARN | | Relationship type | Should use standard types: extends, foundation, contradicts, enables, example | INFO | | Links exist | Each referenced note must exist as a file | WARN | **Topics format (FAIL if invalid):** | Constraint | Check | Severity | |------------|-------|----------| | Format | Array of wiki links: `["[[topic]]"]` | FAIL | | Links exist | Each {DOMAIN:topic map} must exist as a file | WARN | **Composability (WARN if fails):** | Check | Rule | Severity | |-------|------|----------| | Title test | Can you complete "This note argues that [title]"? | WARN | | Specificity | Is the claim specific enough to disagree with? | WARN | ### Step 3: REVIEW (per-note health checks) Run these 5 checks on the note: **1. YAML frontmatter integrity** - File starts with `---`, has closing `---` - YAML parses without errors - No duplicate keys **2. Description quality (independent of recite)** - Description is present and non-empty - Description adds information beyond the title - Description is not just the title rephrased **3. {DOMAIN:topic map} connection** - Note appears in at least one {DOMAIN:topic map}'s Core Ideas section - How to check: grep for `[[note title]]` in files that serve as {DOMAIN:topic map}s - The note's Topics footer references a valid {DOMAIN:topic map} - A note with no {DOMAIN:topic map} mention is orphaned — FAIL **4. Wiki link density** - Count outgoing wiki links in the note body (not just frontmatter) - Expected minimum: 2 outgoing links - If < 2: flag as sparse — the note is not participating in the graph - Sparse notes should be routed to /reflect for connection finding **5. Link resolution** - Scan ALL wiki links in the note — body, frontmatter `relevant_notes`, and Topics - For each `[[link]]`, confirm a matching file exists in the vault - **Exclude** wiki links inside backtick-wrapped code blocks (single backtick or triple backtick) — these are syntax examples, not real links - A single dangling link = FAIL with the specific broken link identified **Deep-only checks (when processing.depth = deep):** **6. Orphan risk assessment** - Count incoming links: grep for `[[note title]]` across all .md files - If 0 incoming links: AT RISK — note exists but nothing references it - If 1 incoming link: LOW RISK — single point of connection - If 2+ incoming links: OK **7. Content staleness detection** - Read the note's content and assess whether claims still seem current - Check if referenced concepts/tools/approaches have changed - Flag anything that reads as potentially outdated **8. Bundling analysis** - Does the note make multiple distinct claims that could be separate notes? - Check: could you link to part of this note without dragging unrelated context? - If yes: flag for potential splitting ### Step 4: APPLY FIXES If you have Edit tool access, apply fixes for clear-cut issues: **Auto-fix (safe to apply):** - Improved description if recite score < 3 - Missing `---` frontmatter delimiters - Trailing period on description - Missing Topics footer (if obvious which {DOMAIN:topic map} applies) **Do NOT auto-fix (requires judgment):** - Bundled notes (splitting requires understanding the claims) - Content staleness (needs human review of factual accuracy) - Missing connections (use /reflect instead — connection finding is its own phase) - Ambiguous {DOMAIN:topic map} assignment (when note could fit multiple) ### Step 5: Compile Results Combine all checks into a unified report: ``` === VERIFY: [note title] === RECITE: Prediction score: N/5 Retrieval rank: #N (or "not in top 10" or "deferred") Description: [pass/improved/needs work] VALIDATE: Required fields: [PASS/FAIL — detail] Description constraints: [PASS/WARN — detail] Topics format: [PASS/FAIL — detail] Optional fields: [PASS/WARN/N/A] Relevant notes: [PASS/WARN/N/A] Composability: [PASS/WARN] REVIEW: Frontmatter: [PASS/FAIL] Description quality: [PASS/WARN] {DOMAIN:topic map} connection: [PASS/FAIL — which {DOMAIN:topic map}] Wiki links: N outgoing [PASS/WARN if < 2] Link resolution: [PASS/FAIL — broken links listed] Overall: [PASS / WARN (N warnings) / FAIL (N failures)] Actions Taken: - [List of fixes applied, or "none"] Recommended Actions: - [List of suggested next steps, or "none"] === ``` ### Step 6: Update task file and capture observations - If a task file is in context (pipeline execution): update the `## Verify` section with results - Reflect on the process: friction? surprises? methodology insights? process gaps? - If any observations worth capturing: create atomic note in the observations directory per the observation capture pattern - If `--handoff` in target: output RALPH HANDOFF block (see below) **START NOW.** The reference material below explains philosophy and methodology — use to guide reasoning, not as output to repeat. --- # Verify Combined verification: recite (description quality) + validate (schema compliance) + review (health checks). Three lightweight checks in one context window. ## philosophy **verification is one concern, not three.** recite tests whether the description enables retrieval. validate checks schema compliance. review checks graph health. all three operate on the same note, read the same frontmatter, and together answer one question: is this {DOMAIN:note} ready? running them separately meant three context windows, three subagent spawns, three rounds of reading the same file. the checks are lightweight enough (combined context ~15-25% of window) that they fit comfortably in one session while staying in the smart zone. > "the unit of verification is the {DOMAIN:note}, not the check type." ## execution order matters **Recite MUST run first.** The cold-read prediction test requires forming an honest prediction from title + description BEFORE reading the full note. If validate or review ran first (both read the full note), the prediction would be contaminated. Recite's constraint: predict first, read second. **Index freshness runs before everything.** The retrieval test in recite depends on semantic search having current data. Without a freshness check, recently created notes produce false retrieval failures that obscure actual description quality issues. After recite reads the full note, validate and review can run in any order since they both need the full content. ## recite: description quality the testing effect applied to vault quality. read only title + description, predict what the note argues, then check. if your prediction fails, the description fails. **why this matters:** descriptions are the API of the vault. agents decide whether to load a note based on title + description. a misleading description causes two failure modes: - **false positive:** agent reads the note expecting X, wastes context on Y - **false negative:** agent skips the note because description doesn't signal relevance both degrade the vault's value as a knowledge tool. **retrieval test rationale:** agents find notes via semantic search during reflect and reweave. testing with BM25 keyword matching tests the wrong retrieval method. full hybrid search with LLM reranking compensates for weak descriptions — too lenient. vector_search tests real semantic findability without hiding bad descriptions. ## validate: schema compliance checks against the relevant template schema: | Check | Requirement | Severity | |-------|-------------|----------| | `description` | Must exist, non-empty | FAIL | | `topics` | Must exist, array of wiki links | FAIL | | description length | < 200 chars | WARN | | description content | Adds info beyond title | WARN | | description format | No trailing period | WARN |