vp-note-quality

Note Quality Checklist

When writing or editing Basic Memory notes, apply these rules to prevent the "fourth-wall anti-pattern" — self-referential content that references the knowledge graph, the enrichment process, or the state of personal knowledge sources instead of focusing on the note's subject.

Root cause: Task-boundary collapse. When an agent evaluates whether a topic fits the graph AND writes the note, the evaluation leaks into the content. The fix is a firewall: discard graph-fitting analysis before writing.

Diagnostic question: "If this note were exported and read by someone who knew nothing about the enrichment session and had never heard of Basic Memory, would every sentence make sense?" If no — it is harmful self-reference.

Rules

1. Subject test. Every sentence — including frontmatter prose fields like description — must be about the note's declared subject. Content about the knowledge graph, the enrichment session, or personal knowledge sources must be deleted before writing.

2. No inventory claims. Never write "X has zero presence in Raindrop/Readwise/Basic Memory." Coverage state is ephemeral and becomes false immediately. It belongs in session notes, not permanent knowledge notes.

3. No significance rankings. Never write "this is the most significant gap" or "this is the most important connection." These are editorial judgments about the session, not facts about the subject.

4. Firewall graph-fitting analysis. If you assessed whether a topic fills a graph gap before writing, discard that analysis entirely. The note is not a report on the assessment; it is knowledge about the subject.

5. [gap] means subject gap, not coverage gap. A [gap] observation records something unknown about the subject itself (e.g., "The mechanism by which X spread to Y is undocumented"). It never records that the subject was absent from Raindrop or Readwise.

6. [raindrop] and [readwise] must cite artifacts. Only add these observations if you have a specific bookmark URL, title, or highlight text. "No Raindrop bookmarks exist" is not a valid observation. Prefer [quote], [source], [pattern], or [connection] for the insight itself — use [raindrop]/[readwise] only when the provenance IS the point.