# Connection Review

> Analyze relationships in a bounded set of Obsidian notes: candidate links, repeated patterns, contradictions, and follow-up opportunities. Load when user asks to find connections, suggest wikilinks, or surface contradictions. Do NOT use for inbox triage, weekly synthesis, or note promotion.

- Skill: `r007b34r/connection-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add r007b34r/connection-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/r007b34r/connection-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: Apache-2.0
- Author: r007b34r (https://skillmd.com/u/r007b34r)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/r007b34r/connection-review

---


# connection-review

## Constraints

- NEVER scan whole vault; scope = 5-15 primary notes + small supporting set
- NEVER treat keyword overlap alone as evidence of connection
- NEVER synthesize week-level meaning (that is weekly-synthesis)
- NEVER write links without explicit user confirmation
- NEVER turn review into whole-vault graphing

## Trigger Boundary

**Use when:** find note connections, suggest wikilinks, identify repeated patterns, surface contradictions, review relationships in a bounded set.

**Do NOT use for:**
- Raw inbox sorting → `inbox-triage`
- Week-level thesis and one action → `weekly-synthesis`
- Vault system health diagnosis → `vault-health-feedback`
- Upgrading material into stable notes → `note-promotion`

## Boundaries

- **Owns:** link discovery, pattern detection, contradiction surfacing, follow-up suggestions
- **Delegates to:** `note-promotion` (follow-up accepted), `weekly-synthesis` (patterns span week)
- **Never absorbs:** inbox routing, synthesis, health diagnosis, context maintenance

## Continuations

| Condition | Next skill |
|-----------|-----------|
| Follow-up note suggestion accepted by user | `note-promotion` |
| Patterns span full week window, user requests synthesis | `weekly-synthesis` |
| Notes too raw for relationship analysis | `inbox-triage` |
| All connections weak/uncertain | Escalate to human |

## Companion Skill

All vault operations follow `obsidian-mcp`. Forbidden: `obsidian_patch_note`, `obsidian_append_to_note`. Verify every write through readback.

## Procedure

### Phase 1: Scope
1. `obsidian_list_notes` or `obsidian_search_notes` → identify recent/specified set
2. Bound to 5-15 primary notes; reject unbounded requests (ask user to narrow)

### Phase 2: Read
1. For each: `obsidian_get_note format:"document-map"` → structure overview
2. `format:"content"` only when evidence is needed for a specific connection
3. Read older notes only to verify a suspected relationship

### Phase 3: Analyze

When analyzing, read `references/examples.md` for connection quality calibration.

Four layers:
1. **Link candidates**: explicit note-to-note or note-to-project relationships
2. **Pattern signals**: repeated themes, problems, or methods across 3+ notes
3. **Contradiction signals**: new vs old claims, goal vs method, assumption vs evidence
4. **Follow-up note suggestions**: synthesis, topic, contradiction, or question notes

<details>
<summary>Pattern Detection Heuristics (expand when patterns are ambiguous)</summary>

- Repeated method across 3+ notes = method pattern
- Same problem framed differently in 2+ notes = contradiction candidate
- Same entity referenced but never linked = link candidate
- Shared tag + temporal proximity alone ≠ connection (keyword trap)
- Contradiction requires real tension, not mere difference of topic
- A "pattern" with only 2 data points is a hypothesis, not a finding

</details>

### Phase 4: Report

When formatting output, read `references/templates.md` for the exact report structure.

Default mode: analysis-only. Write links only after confirmation using `obsidian_replace_in_note` + readback.

## Gotchas

### Gotcha 1: Keyword matching as connection
**What happens:** Agent suggests links because two notes share the same tag or word
**Why it's wrong:** Keyword overlap without conceptual relationship creates noise in the graph
**Correct approach:** Require conceptual, project, or evidence-based relationship; cite specific content from both notes

### Gotcha 2: Scope creep into whole-vault graphing
**What happens:** Agent starts reading notes outside the specified set
**Why it's wrong:** Violates bounded scope constraint; wastes token budget exponentially
**Correct approach:** Stay within 5-15 primary notes; read outside only to verify one specific suspected link

### Gotcha 3: Review becomes synthesis
**What happens:** Agent extracts a thesis or "what it all means" from the connections
**Why it's wrong:** That is weekly-synthesis territory; connection-review stops at relationships
**Correct approach:** Report links, patterns, contradictions, follow-ups — do not interpret overall meaning

## Validators (CI only, not runtime)

- `validators/pre-check.sh`: Confirms note set is bounded (≤15 primary notes)
- `validators/post-check.sh`: Verifies output contains no synthesis markers (thesis/emerging meaning)

## Exit Criteria

- Every connection suggestion names both endpoints and cites evidence
- Patterns and contradictions are not based on keyword overlap alone
- Whole vault was not scanned
- Any written link has been read back and verified