Recall
Claude Code plugin: AI agent for your Obsidian vault — process books, courses, papers, YouTube into connected notes
npx -y skills add tuan3w/obsidian-vault-agent --skill recallAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Spaced repetition and retrieval practice engine for the vault. Use when the user wants a review session, recall practice, to test what they remember, or to resurface notes. Triggers on "review session", "what should I review", "recall practice", "resurface notes", "spaced repetition", "quiz me", "what do I know about", "inbox triage", "surprise connection".
SKILL.md
10.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
<Use_When>
- User wants a review session ("what should I review?", "quiz me", "recall practice")
- User wants to resurface notes they haven't seen in a while
- User wants to triage their inbox
- User wants to discover connections across domains
- User asks "what do I remember about X?"
- Periodic knowledge maintenance (daily, weekly reviews) </Use_When>
<Do_Not_Use_When>
- User wants to deeply process a specific note (use /process)
- User wants vault structure analysis (use /vault-graph)
- User wants to synthesize across a cluster (use /synthesize)
- User is actively reading or adding a new source note </Do_Not_Use_When>
<Execution_Policy>
- INTERACTIVE — never skip ahead. Each card requires the user to respond before the answer is shown. The friction IS the learning.
- Never show note content before the user attempts recall
- Prefer notes with updated_date older than 14 days (spacing effect)
- MUST interleave domains — draw from at least 3 different topic folders
- Use MCP tools (search_notes, get_frontmatter) when available; fall back to Grep/Glob
- Session size: default 5 retrieval cards, 2 inbox items, 1 surprise connection (adjust to user's argument if provided)
- After each reveal, offer to update the note if it's stale </Execution_Policy>
Stage 1: BUILD THE QUEUE
1a. Retrieval Practice Cards (default 3–5)
Candidate selection using MCP:
search_notes(query="processing_status: processed OR processing_status: evergreen", limit=50)
search_notes(query="type: term OR type: note", limit=50)
Or fall back to Grep:
Grep(pattern="processing_status: (processed|evergreen)", path="notes/", glob="*.md")
Grep(pattern="^type: (term|note)$", path="notes/", glob="*.md")
Filter and rank candidates:
- Prefer notes with
updated_dateolder than 14 days — compute from today (2026-03-20) - Prefer notes with the
[ ](#anki-card)anchor (marked for spaced repetition) - Prefer notes with
processing_status: processedoverevergreen(evergreen notes are maintained; processed ones need re-testing) - Enforce domain interleaving: collect the topic folder for each candidate
(
notes/ml/,notes/psychology/,notes/startup/, etc.) and ensure the final selection spans at least 3 different folders - If fewer than 3 domains are available, accept 2 minimum
Read the frontmatter to confirm updated_date and type:
get_frontmatter(path="notes/PATH/filename.md")
1b. Inbox Triage Items (1–2)
Find the oldest unprocessed source notes:
search_notes(query="processing_status: inbox", limit=20)
Or:
Grep(pattern="processing_status: inbox", path="notes/", glob="*.md")
Filter to types: paper, post, book, lecture, course.
Sort by created_date ascending — oldest first.
Pick 1–2.
1c. Surprise Connection (1)
Goal: find two notes from DIFFERENT domain folders that share a concept keyword but have NO wikilink between them.
Algorithm:
- Pick a retrieval card already in the queue (it has topic keywords in its body)
- Extract 2–3 key concept words from that note's title or content
- Search a DIFFERENT domain folder for notes containing those keywords:
Grep(pattern="KEYWORD", path="notes/OTHER_DOMAIN/", glob="*.md") - Check that the two notes do NOT link to each other:
Grep(pattern="\\[\\[.*TITLE.*\\]\\]", path="notes/SOURCE_NOTE.md") - If no match, try a second keyword or a second candidate note
- Present both notes with the shared concept as the "bridge"
Non-obvious pairings to prioritize (cross-domain > within-domain):
- ml/ ↔ psychology/ (learning algorithms ↔ cognitive science)
- startup/ ↔ design/ (product strategy ↔ UX)
- finance/ ↔ ml/ (optimization ↔ market dynamics)
- psychology/ ↔ startup/ (behavioral economics ↔ business)
- computer science/ ↔ logic/ (formal systems ↔ reasoning)
Stage 2: PRESENT QUEUE OVERVIEW
Before starting, show the session plan:
Review session — [N] cards queued
Retrieval practice ([count]):
1. [Note title] — [domain]
2. [Note title] — [domain]
...
Inbox triage ([count]):
• [Note title] ([type], [age] days old)
...
Surprise connection: [teaser — e.g., "a bridge between ML and psychology"]
Ready? I'll show you one card at a time. Type anything to start, or "skip [N]"
to skip a card.
Stage 3: RUN THE SESSION
For each retrieval practice card:
Turn 1 — Prompt recall:
─────────────────────────────────────
Card [N/total] · [domain folder]
[[ (Type) Note Title ]]
What do you remember about this concept?
(Type your answer, or "skip" to reveal)
─────────────────────────────────────
Wait for user response.
Turn 2 — Reveal: Read the full note content:
read_note(path="notes/PATH/filename.md")
Or: Read(file_path="/absolute/path/to/note.md")
Show the note content (truncate at 400 words if very long — show key sections).
Then ask:
How did you do? Is this note still accurate?
[u] Update note [n] Next card [e] Evergreen (promote status)
If user wants to update: help them edit inline, then update updated_date
in frontmatter using update_frontmatter.
If user types "e" or "evergreen": update processing_status to evergreen.
For each inbox triage item:
─────────────────────────────────────
Inbox triage · [type] · [age] days old
[[ (Type) Note Title ]]
Read the note, show the first 5–7 bullets (or Abstract section for papers).
Then ask:
Worth processing deeply, or archive?
[p] Process (I'll run /process next) [a] Archive [s] Skip for now
p→ note it as a recommendation; optionally updateprocessing_status: processinga→ updateprocessing_status: archiveds→ leave unchanged
For the surprise connection:
─────────────────────────────────────
Surprise connection
These two notes share the concept "[KEYWORD]" but don't link to each other:
[[ (Type) Note A ]] (domain: X)
[[ (Type) Note B ]] (domain: Y)
[Brief excerpt from each showing the shared concept]
Do you see a meaningful connection? What would the link say?
─────────────────────────────────────
Wait for user response. If they see a connection:
- Help them decide which note gets the wikilink (or both)
- Offer to add the link:
[[ (Type) Note B ]]into Note A's Related links section - Update
updated_dateon both notes
Stage 4: SESSION SUMMARY
─────────────────────────────────────
Session complete
Reviewed: [N] cards
Updated: [N] notes
Promoted to evergreen: [list]
Archived: [list]
Queued for /process: [list]
New connections made: [count]
Oldest unreviewed term: [title] ([N] days)
─────────────────────────────────────
Optionally suggest: "Run /process on [oldest inbox item] next."
</Steps> <Examples> <Good> User: "review session" 1. Build queue: 4 term notes (ml/, psychology/, startup/, finance/), 2 inbox papers, 1 surprise 2. Show overview → user starts 3. Card 1: "[[ (Term) Attention Mechanism ]]" — user recalls, sees note, updates a stale bullet 4. Card 2: "[[ (Term) Loss Aversion ]]" — user blanks, reads note, promotes to evergreen 5. Inbox: "(Paper) Chinchilla Scaling Laws" — 60 days old → user says archive 6. Surprise: "(Term) Gradient Descent" ↔ "(Term) Operant Conditioning" — shared keyword "reward signal" → user says "oh, both use incremental feedback to converge on a target behavior" → adds link 7. Summary: 6 reviewed, 2 updated, 1 evergreen, 1 archived, 1 connection made </Good> <Good> User: "quiz me on 3 cards" → Session with 3 retrieval cards (not 5), 1 inbox item, 1 surprise connection </Good> <Bad> Showing note content immediately without prompting recall first. → This destroys the retrieval practice effect. ALWAYS show title first, wait for response. </Bad> <Bad> Picking 4 cards all from notes/ml/. → Violates interleaving. Domains must be mixed. If ml/ only has enough candidates, pull from any other folder before repeating a domain. </Bad> </Examples><Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
- Not enough processed notes (<3): Inform user, offer to run /process first on top inbox items
- All notes recently reviewed (updated within 7 days): Report "vault is fresh — nothing due for spacing"
- No inbox items: Skip inbox triage stage, replace with an extra retrieval card
- Surprise connection not found after 3 attempts: Skip it, note "no unlinked cross-domain pairs found today"
- User types "stop" or "quit": End session immediately, show partial summary
- MCP unavailable: Fall back to Grep/Glob for all searches; behavior is identical </Escalation_And_Stop_Conditions>
$ARGUMENTS