Back to skills
SkillHub ClubShip Full StackFull Stack
reviewing-notes
Imported from https://github.com/alexanderop/second-brain-nuxt.
Packaged view
This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.
Stars
8
Hot score
84
Updated
March 20, 2026
Overall rating
C3.2
Composite score
3.2
Best-practice grade
S96.0
Install command
npx @skill-hub/cli install alexanderop-second-brain-nuxt-reviewing-notes
Repository
alexanderop/second-brain-nuxt
Skill path: .claude/skills/reviewing-notes
Imported from https://github.com/alexanderop/second-brain-nuxt.
Open repositoryBest for
Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.
Technical facets: Full Stack.
Target audience: everyone.
License: Unknown.
Original source
Catalog source: SkillHub Club.
Repository owner: alexanderop.
This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.
What it helps with
- Install reviewing-notes into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
- Review https://github.com/alexanderop/second-brain-nuxt before adding reviewing-notes to shared team environments
- Use reviewing-notes for development workflows
Works across
Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode
Favorites: 0.
Sub-skills: 0.
Aggregator: No.
Original source / Raw SKILL.md
--- name: reviewing-notes description: Audit notes for quality issues. Use when asked to "review notes", "check content quality", "audit my knowledge base", or "find broken links". allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep --- # Reviewing Notes for Quality This skill audits the knowledge base for quality issues and produces an actionable report. ## Workflow ### 1. Scan All Content ```bash # List all content files ls content/*.md ``` ### 2. Check Each Note For Issues **Read each file and check for:** #### Missing or Weak Summaries - No `summary:` field in frontmatter - Summary is empty or very short (<10 words) - Summary doesn't capture the core idea #### Broken Wiki-Links Parse all `[[slug]]` patterns and verify each target exists: ```bash # Extract wiki-links from a file grep -o '\[\[[^]]*\]\]' content/note-name.md # Check if target file exists ls content/target-slug.md ``` #### Insufficient Tags - Notes with fewer than 2 tags - Notes with no tags at all #### Orphan Notes - No outgoing wiki-links (doesn't reference other notes) - No incoming wiki-links (not referenced by other notes) - Both = fully isolated #### Short Content - Body content under 100 words (may indicate incomplete note) #### Missing Required Frontmatter - No `title` field - No `type` field - Missing `date` field ### 3. Generate Report Organize findings by severity: ```markdown ## Quality Audit Report ### Critical Issues - **Broken Links** - `note-a.md`: links to [[non-existent]] (file not found) ### High Priority - **Missing Summaries** - `note-b.md`: no summary field - `note-c.md`: summary is empty - **Orphan Notes** (no connections) - `isolated-note.md`: 0 incoming, 0 outgoing links ### Medium Priority - **Insufficient Tags** (<2 tags) - `note-d.md`: only 1 tag - **Short Content** (<100 words) - `stub-note.md`: 45 words ### Low Priority - **Missing Optional Fields** - `note-e.md`: no date field ``` ## Issue Categories | Issue | Severity | Impact | |-------|----------|--------| | Broken wiki-link | Critical | Navigation fails | | Missing summary | High | Poor discoverability | | Orphan note | High | Lost in graph | | <2 tags | Medium | Harder to find | | Short content | Medium | May be incomplete | | Missing date | Low | Timeline unclear | ## Quality Checklist When reviewing: - [ ] Checked all content files - [ ] Verified each wiki-link target exists - [ ] Counted tags per note - [ ] Identified orphan notes - [ ] Measured content length - [ ] Prioritized issues by severity