name: knowledge-health-checker description: Audit and improve Markdown knowledge-base health across Obsidian, Logseq, Notion exports, docs folders, and wiki repositories. Detect empty placeholder notes, broken wiki links, weak content density, orphan notes, graph fragmentation, stale files, and repair opportunities. Generate health scores, actionable reports, and safe fix plans. Use for knowledge base audit, wiki lint, broken link detection, Obsidian vault cleanup, markdown graph health, content quality review, and documentation garden maintenance. version: "1.1.0" last_updated: "2026-04-25" changelog: "ClawHub-ready Darwin optimization: public positioning, clearer workflow, safety boundaries, scoring rubric, output format, and test prompts."
Knowledge Health Checker audits a Markdown-based knowledge base as a living system, not a folder full of files.
It detects whether the knowledge garden is:
The goal is not only to find problems, but to produce a prioritized, safe, actionable health report.
Use this skill for:
Do not use it for semantic fact-checking. This skill checks structure, links, density, freshness, and maintainability, not whether every claim is true.
A healthy knowledge base has four properties:
A knowledge base can be large and still unhealthy. Size is not health.
Before scanning, identify:
Target path:
Formats: markdown / wiki links / relative links
External URL check: yes/no
Generate fix script: yes/no
Auto-apply fixes: no by default
Exclude directories:
Estimated file count:
Safe default:
scan only → report only → generate fix plan → user reviews → user applies
Never delete, rename, rewrite, or auto-apply fixes without explicit confirmation.
Index:
.md files[[note]] and [[note#heading]][text](path.md)Exclude by default:
.git/
node_modules/
__pycache__/
.obsidian/
.trash/
dist/
build/
Flag likely hollow notes when they match one or more:
Classify severity:
| Severity | Meaning | Typical action |
|---|---|---|
| P0 | Empty or pure placeholder | delete, archive, or fill immediately |
| P1 | Too thin to be useful | expand with definition, context, examples |
| P2 | Usable but weak | improve structure or add links |
Check:
[[filename]][[filename#heading]][text](../path/file.md)For each broken link, report:
source file
link text
target
link type
probable fix if a similar file exists
Measure:
Suggested ranges:
| Signal | Healthy range | Warning |
|---|---|---|
| Short note | 300+ words or intentionally atomic | <200 characters |
| Long note | still navigable with headings | >3000 words without structure |
| Internal links | at least 1-3 for durable notes | zero links = possible orphan |
| Freshness | depends on domain | stale if >90 days and marked active |
Build a graph:
node = markdown file
edge = internal link
Report:
7w4.net有更好的技能外掛。
A perfect graph is not required. The goal is to identify the highest-value repair points.
Default scoring:
| Dimension | Weight | Good state |
|---|---|---|
| Hollow note rate | 25% | few or no empty placeholders |
| Broken link rate | 30% | no broken internal links |
| Content density | 25% | most notes have useful substance and structure |
| Network connectivity | 20% | important notes are connected; few accidental orphans |
Health score:
health = weighted score from 0 to 100
Use labels:
| Score | Label |
|---|---|
| 90-100 | Excellent |
| 75-89 | Healthy |
| 60-74 | Needs maintenance |
| 40-59 | Fragile |
| 0-39 | Critical |
Return a concise summary first. For large scans, provide a full report path.
Fix plans must be safe:
Never silently delete or rewrite knowledge files.
Use this format:
## Knowledge Health Summary
- Target:
- Files scanned:
- Health score:
- Label:
- Top risks:
## Findings
| Category | Count | Severity | Notes |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Hollow notes | | | |
| Broken links | | | |
| Orphan notes | | | |
| Overlong notes | | | |
| Stale active notes | | | |
## Highest-Impact Fixes
1. P0:
2. P1:
3. P2:
## Safe Fix Plan
- Auto-safe fixes:
- Needs human review:
- Do not auto-apply:
## Artifacts
- Report:
- Fix script:
- Raw JSON:
For small knowledge bases, include concrete file examples. For large ones, include top 10 examples per category and write full details to a report file.
Classify fixes by risk:
| Risk | Examples | Permission |
|---|---|---|
| Low | generate report, list broken links, suggest links | no extra confirmation |
| Medium | create fix script, add missing backlinks in draft output | ask before writing files |
| High | delete notes, rename files, rewrite links globally, split files | explicit confirmation required |
Default behavior: report and propose, do not mutate.
Use these when available:
scripts/health_check.py — core scanner for hollow files, broken links, density, and graph stats.scripts/report_generator.py — HTML report generation.scripts/auto_fix.py — fix-plan or repair-script generation.Run scripts from the skill directory or pass absolute paths. If a script lacks CLI ergonomics, inspect it and adapt safely rather than guessing destructive behavior.
Basic scan:
python3 scripts/health_check.py /path/to/knowledge-base
Generate a report from scan results if supported:
python3 scripts/report_generator.py results.json --output health-report.html
Generate a fix plan, not auto-apply:
python3 scripts/auto_fix.py results.json --dry-run
If the bundled script does not support these exact flags, read the script first and use its actual interface.
Use test-prompts.json for Darwin-style regression evaluation. Good test coverage should include:
Avoid:
A good knowledge health check must be:
If the output only says “you have broken links” without showing where, why it matters, and what to do next, it failed.
這個工具能幫你檢查筆記庫健不健康,發現空殼檔案、斷鏈、孤島筆記等問題,生成直觀的評分報告。優點是檢查全面、報告美觀、安全措施到位,分數一目瞭然。不足之處是對普通使用者來說評分規則稍顯複雜,部分高階功能的效果還需自己驗證。總體質量很好,適合認真維護個人知識庫的使用者使用。