second-brain-review

# 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 1. **Diff the period.** New and updated pages since the last review, from `log.md` and frontmatter dates. 2. **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. 3. **Surface contradictions** recorded during the period and still unresolved. 4. **List open questions** from concept and synthesis pages. 5. **Find the neglected.** Pages linked often but thin, or gaps in `index.md` that keep getting referenced. 6. **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.