audit-notes
Skill1 starsChanged 18 days agoMITView on GitHub
Vault health in one ritual — find and fix orphans, dead links, stale, duplicate or misplaced files and privacy leaks; `score` gives the read-only four-layer score, `graph` rebuilds the navigator. Triggers — "cortex audit", "fix dead links", "score my vault", "rebuild the graph", "what needs a MOC".
In this repository43 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- core/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- evals/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- index/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- mcp/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- tools/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- architecture-reviewSkill
- challenge-planSkill
- change-impactSkill
- clarify-requestSkill
- connect-mcpSkill
- create-teamSkill
- daily-planSkill
- debug-issueSkill
- define-termsSkill
- design-specSkill
- end-of-day-summarySkill
- handover-notesSkill
- join-teamSkill
- merge-workSkill
- migrate-legacy-engineSkill
- personal-setupSkill
- quick-noteSkill
- register-projectsSkill
- repo-mapSkill
- resolve-conflictsSkill
- resume-workSkill
- retrospectiveSkill
- review-changeSkill
- set-profileSkill
- setup-repoSkill
- story-mapSkill
- suggest-skillsSkill
- summarize-filesSkill
- sync-websiteSkill
- trim-agent-docsSkill
- update-pluginSkill
- weekly-reviewSkill
- whats-changedSkill
- write-agent-docsSkill
- write-area-briefSkill
- write-context-docsSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 45
add missing frontmatter; move misplaced files to the right PARA folder.
- Distinctive: line 49
Don't guess; let the user decide, then execute their call.
- Distinctive: line 55
Keep committed files data-free — never write personal/business facts into a shared file.
- Very specific: line 59
Default: auto-apply [safe] fixes, pause for the user on every [judgment] call.
- Very specific: line 62
After a cleanup, the graph mode regenerates the views.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
/audit-notes — dispatch the auditor, then fix
One command for a complete health pass. It delegates the scan to the cortex-auditor custom
subagent (agents/cortex-auditor.md), which runs read-only in its own context so the heavy
globbing/link-mapping never bloats this conversation — then you apply the fixes here.
Three modes, one ritual
| Asked for | Mode | Do |
| a health score, "is my brain healthy", "score my setup" | /audit-notes score | read SCORE.md and follow it. It scores content and writes nothing but an optional saved report |
| rebuild the graph, "what needs a MOC", "tidy the vault" | /audit-notes graph | read GRAPH.md and follow it |
| anything else: orphans, dead links, misplaced files, a full check | /audit-notes | the steps below. They find and fix structure |
/audit and /reindex were separate rituals until 2.42.0. Someone who types either name wants
score or graph.
What to do
- Dispatch the auditor. Launch the
cortex-auditorsubagent (via the Agent/Task tool,subagent_type: cortex-auditor) with the vault root as its target. It returns one ranked findings report: structural categories (orphans, dead links, stale, duplicate, misplaced, integrity/privacy, skill-wiring drift) + a four-layer content-health signal. Each finding is tagged[safe]or[judgment]. If the subagent is unavailable, readagents/cortex-auditor.mdand run its scan inline — it holds the categories, the method and the output shape, so the report comes out the same either way. Only the isolation is lost. - Show the report to the user — findings by category, plus the graph's node/link/dead-link counts.
- Lead with the employer firewall. Per the vault's
AGENTS.md(templates/vault-AGENTS.md), day-job content in ahomevault is a critical finding, not a style nit — report it above the structural findings and the health signal, naming file and line. The fix is to move the file into a gitignoredarchives/<name>-YYYY-MM-DD/folder and confirm withgit check-ignore -vthat it landed there ignored. Treat it as[judgment]: show it, don't sanitize-and-file, and don't act until the user decides. If the report is clean on this, say so in one line and move on. - Apply the
[safe]fixes (these are mechanical + reversible):- resolve dead links; wire orphans in (add
[[links]]fromhome.md/a MOC/related notes); - add missing frontmatter; move misplaced files to the right PARA folder;
- mirror unwired skills into
.claude/skills/and add missingAGENTS.md/README.mdentries; - archive truly-dead files (
movetoarchives/, never delete).
- resolve dead links; wire orphans in (add
- Surface the
[judgment]calls — redundant merges, "stale or just quiet?", anything ambiguous. Don't guess; let the user decide, then execute their call. - Re-run
bash tools/cortex.shto confirm the graph improved (fewer orphans,0 dead), and report: findings by category, what you fixed, and what's left for the user to decide.
Don't
- Never delete — move to
archives/. Deletion is the user's call only. - Keep committed files data-free — never write personal/business facts into a shared file.
- The subagent is read-only by design; all writes happen here, only after the report is shown.
Autonomy
Default: auto-apply [safe] fixes, pause for the user on every [judgment] call. If the user asks
to approve each edit, switch to proposing all fixes first.
After a cleanup, the graph mode regenerates the views. Targets this vault —
/trim-agent-docs is the same instinct pointed at another repo.
When the floor is not met
The scan itself is mechanical — globbing, link maps, git check-ignore. What needs the floor is ranking the findings and calling [safe] versus [judgment], and mistaking a judgment call for a safe one means an automatic fix to something that needed a human.
Below the floor: run it with every finding treated as [judgment] — report all of them and apply none automatically. The scan is still worth having; only the autonomy is withdrawn. The subagent fallback in step 1 is a separate concern: that is about the harness having subagents at all, not about model strength.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

