validate

## Runtime Configuration (Step 0 — before any processing)

Read these files to configure domain-specific behavior:

1. **`ops/derivation-manifest.md`** — vocabulary mapping, platform hints
   - Use `vocabulary.notes` for the notes folder name
   - Use `vocabulary.note` / `vocabulary.note_plural` for note type references
   - Use `vocabulary.topic_map` for MOC references
   - Use `vocabulary.templates` for the templates folder path

2. **`ops/config.yaml`** — processing depth
   - `processing.depth`: deep | standard | quick

If these files don't exist, use universal defaults.

**Processing depth adaptation:**

| Depth | Validation Behavior |
|-------|---------------------|
| deep | Full schema validation. All checks enabled including composability analysis and cross-reference verification |
| standard | Full validation — all checks enabled |
| quick | Basic schema validation only — required fields, YAML validity, enum values |

## EXECUTE NOW

**Target: $ARGUMENTS**

Parse immediately:
- If target contains a note name: validate that specific note
- If target contains `--handoff`: output RALPH HANDOFF block at end
- If target is "all" or "notes": validate all notes in {DOMAIN:notes}/ directory
- If target is empty: ask which note to validate

**Execute these steps:**

### Step 1: Locate Template

Determine which template applies to the target note:

1. Check the note's location — notes in {DOMAIN:notes}/ use the standard note template
2. Check the `type` field in frontmatter — specialized types may have dedicated templates
3. Look for a templates directory (check `ops/templates/` or domain-specific path from derivation manifest)
4. If the template has a `_schema` block, read it — this is the authoritative schema definition

If no template is found, use the default schema checks below.

### Step 2: Read Target Note

Read the target note's full YAML frontmatter. Parse:
- All YAML fields and their values
- The body content (for link scanning)
- The footer section (for Topics and Relevant Notes)

### Step 3: Run Schema Checks

Run ALL validation checks. Each check produces PASS, WARN, or FAIL.

**START NOW.**

---

## Schema Checks

### Required Fields (FAIL if missing)

| Check | Rule | How to Verify |
|-------|------|---------------|
| `description` | Must exist and be non-empty | Check YAML frontmatter for `description:` field with non-empty value |
| Topics | Must link to at least one {DOMAIN:topic map} | Check for `topics:` in YAML or `Topics:` section in footer. Must contain at least one wiki link |

A missing required field is a hard failure. The note cannot pass validation without these.

### Description Quality (WARN if weak)

| Check | Rule | How to Verify |
|-------|------|---------------|
| Length | Should be ~50-200 characters | Count characters in description value |
| New information | Must add context beyond the title | Compare description text against filename/title — if semantically equivalent, WARN |
| No trailing period | Convention: descriptions don't end with periods | Check last character |
| Single sentence | Should be one coherent statement | Check for sentence-ending punctuation mid-description |

**How to check "adds new info":** Read the title (filename without .md). Read the description. If the description merely restates the title using different words, it fails this check. A good description adds one of:
- **Mechanism** — how or why the claim works
- **Scope** — what boundaries the claim has
- **Implication** — what follows from the claim
- **Context** — where the claim applies

**Examples:**

Bad (restates title):
- Title: `vector proximity measures surface overlap not deep connection`
- Description: "Semantic similarity captures surface-level overlap rather than genuine conceptual relationships"

Good (adds mechanism):
- Title: `vector proximity measures surface overlap not deep connection`
- Description: "Two notes about the same concept with different vocabulary score high, while genuinely related ideas across domains score low"

### YAML Validity (FAIL if broken)

| Check | Rule | How to Verify |
|-------|------|---------------|
| Frontmatter delimiters | Must start with `---` on line 1 and close with `---` | Read first line and scan for closing delimiter |
| Valid YAML | Must parse without errors | Check for common YAML errors: unquoted colons in values, mismatched quotes, bad indentation |
| No duplicate keys | Each YAML key appears only once | Scan for repeated field names |
| No unknown fields | Fields not in the template schema | Compare against `_schema.required` and `_schema.optional` if available — unknown fields get WARN |

### Domain-Specific Enum Checks (WARN if invalid)

If the note has fields with enumerated values, check them against the template's `_schema.enums` block:

| Field | Expected | Severity |
|-------|----------|----------|
| `type` | Values from template enum (e.g., claim, methodology, tension, problem, learning) | WARN |
| `status` | Values from template enum (e.g., preliminary, open, dissolved) | WARN |
| `classification` | Values from template enum (e.g., open, closed) | WARN |
| Custom domain fields | Values from template enum | WARN |

If a field has a value not in the enum list, report the invalid value and list the valid options.

### Link Health (WARN per broken link)

| Check | Rule | How to Verify |
|-------|------|---------------|
| Body wiki-links | Each `[[link]]` should point to an existing file | Extract all `[[...]]` patterns from body, check each against file tree |
| Topics links | {DOMAIN:topic map} referenced in Topics must exist | Verify each topic wiki link resolves |
| Relevant notes links | Each note in `relevant_notes` must exist | Verify each wiki link in relevant_notes resolves |
| Backtick exclusion | Wiki links inside backticks are examples, not real links | Skip `[[...]]` patterns inside single or triple backtick blocks |

**How to verify link resolution:** For each `[[link text]]`, check if a file nam