# Vault Review

> Audit the health and consistency of a long-term Markdown Vault. Use to find duplicate, stale, conflicting, misplaced, verbose, orphaned, or poorly linked knowledge before broad maintenance.

- Skill: `faroxdev/vault-review` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add faroxdev/vault-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/faroxdev/vault-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- Author: faroxdev (https://skillmd.com/u/faroxdev)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/faroxdev/vault-review

---


# Vault Review

## Purpose

Audit a long-term Markdown Vault for knowledge-quality and maintainability problems.

## When to Use

Use this skill for Vault health checks, consistency reviews, cleanup assessments, or requests to identify what should be corrected or consolidated.

## When Not to Use

Do not use this skill for ordinary retrieval; use `vault-read`. Do not perform broad mutation unless the user explicitly requests it.

## Principles

- Review first.
- Prefer evidence from canonical current notes over chronological or historical records.
- Distinguish confirmed defects from suspicious items requiring human judgment.
- Recommend the smallest change that restores a clear source of truth.

## Workflow

1. Establish the requested scope: the whole Vault, a folder, a topic, or selected notes.
2. Identify canonical notes and the current-state claims within scope.
   Record which note owns each fact, its evidence date, and whether the evidence is a historical observation or a live check.
3. Inspect for:
   - duplicate notes
   - conflicting facts
   - stale active notes
   - Current and History mixing
   - obsolete configuration
   - suspicious or broken links
   - completed TODOs
   - orphan notes
   - overly verbose historical logs
   - information that belongs in another canonical note
   - duplicated configuration or TODOs maintained independently in multiple notes
   - edit dates presented as verification dates, or partial tests presented as whole-system validation
4. Compare findings against linked notes and relevant history before declaring a conflict or stale fact.
5. Rank findings by impact and confidence.
6. Report findings without broad mutation unless changes were explicitly requested.

## Output

For each finding, provide:

```text
Finding
Reason / Risk
Recommended action
```

Include the affected note or section, supporting evidence and its date, and distinguish confirmed issues from review candidates. Identify the canonical destination for each recommended correction.

## Rules

- Do not treat age alone as proof that content is stale.
- Do not treat an unlinked note as useless without checking its purpose and references.
- Do not rewrite broad areas of the Vault as part of a default review.
- When actual changes are requested, follow `vault-maintain` principles and verification steps.
- Treat live validation as a separate scope: use authorized, bounded read-only checks, report unavailable checks, and do not change systems or start stopped workloads to make a check pass.

## Completion Criteria

The requested scope has been reviewed, findings are evidence-based and prioritized, recommended actions identify the appropriate canonical location, and no unauthorized broad mutation occurred.