validate

name	validate
description	Schema validation for notes. Checks against domain-specific templates. Validates required fields, enum values, description quality, and link health. Non-blocking — warns but doesn't prevent capture. Triggers on "/validate", "/validate [note]", "check schema", "validate note", "validate all".
user-invocable	true
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob
context	fork
model	sonnet

Runtime Configuration (Step 0 — before any processing)

Read these files to configure domain-specific behavior:

1. arscontexta/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.topic_map for MOC references
   • Use vocabulary.templates for the templates folder path

2. arscontexta/ops/config.yaml — processing depth

   • processing.depth: deep | standard | quick

If these files don't exist, use universal defaults.

Processing depth adaptation:

Depth	Validation Behavior
deep	Full schema validation. All checks enabled including composability analysis and cross-reference verification
standard	Full validation — all checks enabled
quick	Basic schema validation only — required fields, YAML validity, enum values

EXECUTE NOW

Target: $ARGUMENTS

Parse immediately:

• If target contains a note name: validate that specific note
• If target contains --handoff: output RALPH HANDOFF block at end
• If target is "all" or "notes": validate all notes in docs/notes/ directory
• If target is empty: ask which note to validate

Execute these steps:

Step 1: Locate Template

Determine which template applies to the target note:

1. Check the note's location — notes in docs/notes/ use the standard note template
2. Check the type field in frontmatter — specialized types may have dedicated templates
3. Look for a templates directory (check arscontexta/ops/arscontexta/templates/ or domain-specific path from derivation manifest)
4. If the template has a _schema block, read it — this is the authoritative schema definition

If no template is found, use the default schema checks below.

Step 2: Read Target Note

Read the target note's full YAML frontmatter. Parse:

• All YAML fields and their values
• The body content (for link scanning)
• The footer section (for Topics and Relevant Notes)

Step 3: Run Schema Checks

Run ALL validation checks. Each check produces PASS, WARN, or FAIL.

START NOW.

---

Schema Checks

Required Fields (FAIL if missing)

Check	Rule	How to Verify
description	Must exist and be non-empty	Check YAML frontmatter for description: field with non-empty value
Topics	Must link to at least one index	Check for topics: in YAML or Topics: section in footer. Must contain at least one wiki link

A missing required field is a hard failure. The note cannot pass validation without these.

Description Quality (WARN if weak)

Check	Rule	How to Verify
Length	Should be ~50-200 characters	Count characters in description value
New information	Must add context beyond the title	Compare description text against filename/title — if semantically equivalent, WARN
No trailing period	Convention: descriptions don't end with periods	Check last character
Single sentence	Should be one coherent statement	Check for sentence-ending punctuation mid-description

How to check "adds new info": Read the title (filename without .md). Read the description. If the description merely restates the title using different words, it fails this check. A good description adds one of:

• Mechanism — how or why the claim works
• Scope — what boundaries the claim has
• Implication — what follows from the claim
• Context — where the claim applies

Examples:

Bad (restates title):

• Title: vector proximity measures surface overlap not deep connection
• Description: "Semantic similarity captures surface-level overlap rather than genuine conceptual relationships"

Good (adds mechanism):

• Title: vector proximity measures surface overlap not deep connection
• Description: "Two notes about the same concept with different vocabulary score high, while genuinely related ideas across domains score low"

YAML Validity (FAIL if broken)

Check	Rule	How to Verify
Frontmatter delimiters	Must start with --- on line 1 and close with ---	Read first line and scan for closing delimiter
Valid YAML	Must parse without errors	Check for common YAML errors: unquoted colons in values, mismatched quotes, bad indentation
No duplicate keys	Each YAML key appears only once	Scan for repeated field names
No unknown fields	Fields not in the template schema	Compare against _schema.required and _schema.optional if available — unknown fields get WARN

Domain-Specific Enum Checks (WARN if invalid)

If the note has fields with enumerated values, check them against the template's _schema.enums block:

Field	Expected	Severity
type	Values from template enum (e.g., claim, methodology, tension, problem, learning)	WARN
status	Values from template enum (e.g., preliminary, open, dissolved)	WARN
classification	Values from template enum (e.g., open, closed)	WARN
Custom domain fields	Values from template enum	WARN

If a field has a value not in the enum list, report the invalid value and list the valid options.

Link Health (WARN per broken link)

Check	Rule	How to Verify
Body wiki-links	Each [[link]] should point to an existing file	Extract all [[...]] patterns from body, check each against file tree
Topics links	index referenced in Topics must exist	Verify each topic wiki link resolves
Relevant notes links	Each note in relevant_notes must exist	Verify each wiki link in relevant_notes resolves
Backtick exclusion	Wiki links inside backticks are examples, not real links	Skip [[...]] patterns inside single or triple backtick blocks

How to verify link resolution: For each [[link text]], check if a file named link text.md exists anywhere in the vault. Wiki links resolve by filename, not path.

Relevant Notes Format (WARN if incorrect)

Check	Rule	Severity
Format	Array with context: ["[[note]] -- relationship"]	WARN
Context phrase present	Each entry should include -- or — followed by relationship description	WARN
Relationship type	Standard types: extends, foundation, contradicts, enables, example	INFO
No bare links	["[[note]]"] without context is a bare link — useless for navigation	WARN

Composability (WARN if fails)

Check	Rule	How to Verify
Title test	Can you complete "This note argues that [title]"?	Read the title as a sentence fragment — does it make a claim?
Specificity	Is the claim specific enough to disagree with?	Could someone reasonably argue the opposite?
Prose fitness	Would since [[title]] read naturally in another note?	Check if the title works as an inline wiki link

Topic labels vs claims:

• "knowledge management" — topic label, not a claim, FAILS composability
• "knowledge management requires curation not accumulation" — claim, PASSES composability

Batch Mode

When validating all notes (target is "all" or "notes"):

1. Discover all .md files in docs/notes/ directory
2. Optionally include additional directories (e.g., arscontexta/self/memory/) if they exist
3. Run all schema checks on each note
4. Produce summary report:
   • Total notes checked
   • PASS / WARN / FAIL counts
   • Top issues grouped by check type
   • Notes needing immediate attention (FAIL items)
   • Pattern analysis: are certain check types failing systematically?

Batch output format:

## Validation Summary

Checked: N notes
- PASS: M (X%)
- WARN: K (Y%)
- FAIL: J (Z%)

### FAIL Items (immediate attention)
| Note | Check | Detail |
|------|-------|--------|
| [[note]] | description | Missing |
| [[note]] | topics | No topics footer |

### Top WARN Patterns
- Description restates title: N notes
- Missing context phrases in relevant_notes: N notes
- Enum value not in template: N notes

### Notes Needing Attention
1. [[note]] — 2 FAIL, 1 WARN
2. [[note]] — 1 FAIL, 3 WARN

Output Format (Single Note)

=== VALIDATION: [[note title]] ===

PASS:
- description: present, 147 chars, adds mechanism beyond title
- topics: ["[[topic-name]]"] — exists
- yaml: well-formed, valid delimiters
- composability: title works as prose ("This note argues that [title]")

WARN:
- relevant_notes: bare link without context phrase for [[note-x]]
- type: "observation" not in template enum (valid: claim, methodology, tension, problem, learning)

FAIL:
- (none)

Overall: PASS (2 warnings)
===

If WARN or FAIL items exist, include:

### Suggested Fixes
- **relevant_notes**: Add context phrase — e.g., `["[[note-x]] -- extends this by adding..."]`
- **type**: Change to valid enum value or propose adding "observation" to template

Handoff Mode (--handoff flag)

When invoked with --handoff, output this structured format at the END:

=== RALPH HANDOFF: validate ===
Target: [[note title]]

Work Done:
- Validated against [template name] schema
- Checks run: N
- Status: PASS | WARN | FAIL

Findings:
- PASS: [list]
- WARN: [list or "none"]
- FAIL: [list or "none"]

Files Modified:
- [task file path] (Validate section updated, if applicable)

Learnings:
- [Friction]: [description] | NONE
- [Surprise]: [description] | NONE
- [Methodology]: [description] | NONE
- [Process gap]: [description] | NONE

Queue Updates:
- Mark: validate done for this task
=== END HANDOFF ===

Task File Update

When a task file is in context (pipeline execution), update the ## Validate section:

## Validate
**Validated:** [UTC timestamp]

Schema check against [template name]:
- description: PASS (147 chars, adds mechanism beyond title)
- topics: PASS (["[[topic-name]]"])
- yaml: PASS (well-formed)
- type: not specified (optional)
- relevant_notes: WARN (bare link for [[note-x]])
- composability: PASS

Overall: PASS (1 warning)

Severity Levels

Level	Meaning	Action
PASS	Meets requirement fully	None needed
WARN	Optional issue or soft violation	Consider fixing, not blocking
FAIL	Required field missing or invalid format	Must fix before verification passes
INFO	Informational observation	No action needed

FAIL blocks pipeline completion. A note with any FAIL-level issue should NOT be marked done in the queue. It stays at current_phase: "verify" (or "validate" if run standalone) for re-validation after fixes.

WARN does not block. Warnings are quality signals, not gates. A note can proceed through the pipeline with warnings.

Critical Constraints

never:

• block note creation based on validation failures (validation is a quality check, not a gate)
• auto-fix issues without reporting them first
• skip checks because the note "looks fine"
• report PASS without actually running the check
• ignore _schema blocks in templates when they exist

always:

• check ALL schema requirements, not a subset
• report specific field values in FAIL/WARN messages (not just "description is weak")
• suggest concrete fixes for every WARN and FAIL
• use template _schema as the authoritative source when available
• fall back to default checks gracefully when no template exists
• log patterns when running batch validation (recurring issues signal systematic problems)