obsidian-reconcile

Use the obsidian-second-brain skill. Execute /obsidian-reconcile $ARGUMENTS:

The optional argument is a topic or entity to focus on. If not provided, scan the whole vault.

1. Read _CLAUDE.md first if it exists in the vault root

2. Read index.md to understand the full vault landscape

3. Spawn parallel subagents to find contradictions:

   • Claims agent: scan the concepts and projects folders (resolved per references/folder-map.md) for factual claims - find pairs that contradict each other
   • Entity agent: scan the entities folders (resolved per references/folder-map.md, which gives Obsidian-style vaults a separate folder for some entity kinds) for outdated roles, companies, or descriptions that conflict with newer sources
   • Decisions agent: scan the decisions folder (resolved per references/folder-map.md) and project Key Decisions for reversed or superseded decisions that were never updated
   • Source freshness agent: compare raw/ source dates against wiki/ page dates - flag wiki pages that reference old sources when newer ones exist on the same topic

   The claims, entity and decisions agents return each contradiction as two claims, one per side. Each claim has the note's vault-relative path, the line number, and a quote: one line copied character for character from that note, at least 12 characters long. A contradiction without both quotes is not a finding. Pass this format to every subagent.

4. Prove each contradiction before acting on it. Send both claims to the checker (the skill root's absolute path was given at session start as Skill root; substitute it for SKILL_ROOT):

   uv run --directory "SKILL_ROOT" scripts/verify_quotes.py --path <vault> <<'EOF'
   [{"path": "<note path>", "line": 12, "quote": "<line copied from that note>"},
    {"path": "<other note path>", "line": 40, "quote": "<line copied from that note>"}]
   EOF
   

   • Both claims must come back "ok": true. If either fails, drop the contradiction: no rewrite, no conflict note. List it under Dropped as unproven with the reason the checker gave.
   • Use found_line from the output, not the line the subagent gave.
   • Source freshness findings compare dates, not claims, so they skip this step.

   For each proven contradiction, evaluate:

   • Which source is newer? (date comparison)
   • Which source is more authoritative? (peer-reviewed > blog post > transcript > opinion)
   • Is this a genuine contradiction or an evolution? (someone changing their mind is not a contradiction - it's growth)

5. Resolve each contradiction:

   • Clear winner: rewrite the outdated page with current info. Add a ## History section noting what changed and why, with the proven quote it replaced: "Previously stated X (source: raw/articles/old-article.md, 2025-11-01). Updated to Y based on newer evidence (source: raw/articles/new-article.md, 2026-03-15)."
   • Genuinely ambiguous: create Conflict - Topic.md in the decisions folder (resolved per references/folder-map.md; type: conflict, schema in references/ai-first-rules.md) documenting both sides with their verbatim quotes and path:line, the evidence for each, and mark as status: open for the user to decide
   • Evolution: update the entity/concept page to reflect the current state and add the historical context

6. After all resolutions:

   • Rebuild affected sections of index.md
   • Append to the operation log: if Logs/ exists write **HH:MM** - reconcile | X contradictions reported, P proven, D dropped as unproven, Y auto-resolved, Z flagged for user to Logs/YYYY-MM-DD.md; otherwise append ## [YYYY-MM-DD] reconcile | X contradictions reported, P proven, D dropped as unproven, Y auto-resolved, Z flagged for user to log.md
   • Update today's daily note with a reconciliation summary

7. Report back:

   • Auto-resolved (list with old claim → new claim and why)
   • Flagged for user (genuinely ambiguous - needs human judgment)
   • Stale pages updated (pages rewritten with fresher sources)
   • Dropped as unproven (each claim, its path, and the checker's reason)