notes-review

name	notes-review
description	Review the note store for quality issues — duplicates, stale content, broken links, tag inconsistencies, and cleanup opportunities
disable-model-invocation	true

Audit the note store and produce a structured report of proposed changes. Do NOT apply changes — present proposals for user approval, then use /notes-consolidate or individual notes_update/notes_remove calls to execute approved changes.

Examples

/notes-review
/notes-review tag hygiene
/notes-review duplicates
/notes-review stale

Steps

1. Gather the full picture

• notes_list with a high limit to get all notes
• Aggregate tag and type distributions from the full list (count occurrences across all notes)
• Note total count, tag distribution, type distribution

Success criteria: You have a complete inventory of all notes with their metadata.

2. Read and classify

Read notes in batches using notes_read (batch IDs). For each note, check:

Issue	What to look for
Duplicates	Notes with very similar titles or overlapping content
Stale	Outdated information, references to things that may have changed
Tag inconsistencies	Similar tags that should be unified (e.g. "fs" vs "filesystem"), unused tags on single notes
Type mismatches	Notes whose type doesn't match their content (see type guidelines below)
Broken links	mor: links pointing to non-existent notes
Missing links	Notes that reference the same concepts but aren't cross-linked
Empty/thin	Notes with very little content that could be merged into related notes
Title quality	Vague titles that don't help with search

Type guidelines

• file — a source file that can be dropped into a project as-is. Content should be a brief one-line description followed by a single fenced code block — nothing else. No prose sections, no multiple code blocks. If a file note has extra context (usage examples, design notes), split those into a separate snippet or knowledge note with a cross-reference link.
• snippet — a code example, pattern, or recipe. Can have prose, multiple code blocks, and explanatory sections.
• knowledge — concepts, design docs, references. Primarily prose.

If the user specified a focus area (e.g. "duplicates", "tag hygiene"), prioritize that.

Success criteria: Each note has been reviewed and issues catalogued.

3. Present the report

Output a structured report grouped by issue type:

1. Duplicates — groups of notes that overlap, with merge suggestions
2. Tag cleanup — tags to rename/unify, with affected notes
3. Stale content — notes that may need updating or removal
4. Broken links — dangling mor: references
5. Missing links — suggested cross-references between related notes
6. Other — type mismatches, thin notes, title improvements

For each proposal, include:

• The note ID(s) and title(s)
• What the issue is
• Suggested action (merge, retag, update, remove, link)

End with a summary: "X notes reviewed, Y issues found across Z categories"

Success criteria: User can review and approve/reject each proposal individually.

4. Execute approved changes

After the user approves specific proposals:

• Use notes_update for retags, title changes, content updates
• Use /notes-consolidate for batch operations (retagging many notes, merging)
• Use notes_remove for deletions
• Report what was changed

Rules

• Present ALL proposals before making any changes
• Do NOT modify or delete notes without explicit user approval
• Be conservative — flag uncertain issues as "possible" rather than definitive
• For large stores (50+), focus on the highest-impact issues first
• Short ID prefixes (8+ hex chars) work for all mor commands and links