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.