How I refactor notes in Obsidian

TL;DR

Refactoring notes aims for meaningful, findable, usable knowledge that stays aligned with current understanding, not just correct content.

Briefing Cornell Notes

Briefing

Refactoring notes in Obsidian is treated like refactoring code: reorganize and improve clarity without changing the underlying ideas—so the knowledge base stays meaningful, easy to find, and aligned with what the writer currently understands. The core goal is continuous usefulness: notes should reflect evolving thinking, not fossilize older structures. That framing matters because “taking notes” alone doesn’t create a reliable personal knowledge management system; the system depends on ongoing maintenance.

A practical walkthrough centers on a single note called “Monitoring,” which the writer considers structurally off even if nothing inside is factually wrong. The process starts with inventory—mapping what already exists across the vault—using Obsidian’s Quick Switcher (Command + O) and Search to locate related material. To understand how ideas connect, the writer also uses the Strange New Worlds plugin, which highlights links and shows which pages reference a given note. This reveals that “Monitoring” is scattered across multiple subtypes and adjacent concepts, including “Monitoring Tools,” “push-based monitoring,” “Synthetic Monitoring,” “Real User monitoring,” and infrastructure-adjacent categories like Kubernetes and server monitoring.

Next comes structural thinking. The writer uses ExcaliBrain to visualize relationships and identify where the current hierarchy feels messy or incomplete. In the “Monitoring” case, the graph suggests missing or weak connections—especially between Monitoring and Observability, and between Monitoring and Instrumentation. Metadata relationships are then added inside ExcaliBrain: “Monitoring” is set as a child of Observability and part of Performance, with Instrumentation as a child as well. The aim is not to perfect the map immediately, but to create a clearer mental model of where the note belongs.

The third phase, categorizing, focuses on the note’s internal headings. Using the Outline plugin, the writer reshapes the “Monitoring” headings to better match how the topic should be organized: “Why should you monitor” is kept, but “How should you monitor” and earlier framing are replaced with more actionable categories like “Types of monitoring,” “Approaches to monitoring,” and subtopics such as how to expose and aggregate information. The writer explicitly separates collecting vs. sending/centralizing information because those aren’t a simple either-or comparison (for example, instrumentation can align with push-based monitoring).

Then comes explaining—filling in the new structure with targeted content and links to existing notes, while also streamlining overly wordy sections. The final step is modularizing: breaking long notes into smaller, reusable chunks so later restructuring is easier and concepts can be abstracted beyond one context. For “Monitoring,” the writer extracts “Why should you monitor” into a new note (“Reasons for monitoring”) using the Note Refactor community plugin, and moves “Approaches to monitoring” material into the Instrumentation note where it fits better (including creating headings like “Types of instrumentation” and “Aggregating monitoring data”).

Overall, the workflow emphasizes that refactoring is time-consuming but transformative: it turns a pile of notes into a living system that stays accurate as understanding changes, supported by continuous updates to the vault and deliberate re-linking of ideas.

Cornell Notes

Refactoring notes in Obsidian works like refactoring code: reorganize for clarity and usability without changing the underlying meaning. The workflow begins with inventory (Quick Switcher, Search, and Strange New Worlds) to see what “Monitoring” material already exists and how it links. Next, ExcaliBrain is used to redesign the note’s relationships—e.g., setting “Monitoring” as a child of Observability and part of Performance, with Instrumentation connected—so the hierarchy matches current thinking. Categorizing and explaining then reshape headings (via Outline) and add links, while modularizing splits long sections into smaller notes using Note Refactor. The payoff is a personal knowledge system that stays findable and accurate over time.

Why treat note refactoring like code refactoring, and what outcome is being optimized?

The process targets the same kind of improvement as code refactoring: better structure and communication without changing the core ideas. The outcome is that notes remain meaningful, easy to find, and usable—especially as understanding evolves. In practice, the writer argues that “continuous note-taking” requires updating the vault as thinking changes, not just collecting information once.

How does the inventory step prevent “Monitoring” from becoming a siloed or incomplete topic?

Inventory uses Quick Switcher (Command + O) and Search to locate all relevant notes, then Strange New Worlds to reveal link relationships—showing which pages reference a given note. This exposes that “Monitoring” includes multiple forms (push-based, Synthetic Monitoring, Real User monitoring) and overlaps with infrastructure and tooling notes (e.g., Monitoring Tools, Kubernetes-related monitoring, server monitoring). The result is a clearer map of what must be integrated.

What role does ExcaliBrain play beyond visualizing links?

ExcaliBrain is used to reason about hierarchy and relationships, then to encode those relationships via metadata. For “Monitoring,” the writer notices weak or missing connections (especially between Monitoring and Observability, and between Monitoring and Instrumentation), then sets explicit parent/child links: Monitoring becomes a child of Observability and part of Performance, with Instrumentation connected as a child. This turns a messy mental model into a structured one that can guide later edits.

How does categorizing change the structure of the “Monitoring” note?

Categorizing uses Outline to inspect existing headings and then revise them to match how the topic should be organized. Instead of keeping less useful framing like “How should you monitor,” the writer shifts toward “Types of monitoring” (including backend vs frontend) and “Approaches to monitoring,” with subcategories for how to expose information and how to aggregate it. The structure is designed to support linking and future expansion without forcing long explanations into one page.

Why modularize, and how is it executed in this workflow?

Modularizing breaks a long note into smaller chunks so each piece can be updated independently and reused in other contexts. It also reduces the mental cost of refactoring later—moving a link in a bullet list is easier than rearranging whole sections. In the “Monitoring” example, Note Refactor extracts “Why should you monitor” into a new note (“Reasons for monitoring”), and related content like “Approaches to monitoring” is moved into the Instrumentation note (including headings such as “Types of instrumentation” and “Aggregating monitoring data”).

Review Questions

When inventorying a topic like “Monitoring,” what specific tools are used to find both notes and their link relationships, and what does each tool contribute?
How does the workflow decide what to change during categorizing—what signals indicate a heading should be replaced or moved?
In modularizing, what criteria lead to extracting a section into its own note versus leaving it in place?

Key Points

1
Refactoring notes aims for meaningful, findable, usable knowledge that stays aligned with current understanding, not just correct content.
2
Start with an inventory of related notes using Quick Switcher, Search, and Strange New Worlds to capture both content and link structure.
3
Use ExcaliBrain to redesign hierarchy by adding explicit parent/child relationships in metadata, especially where connections feel weak (e.g., Monitoring ↔ Observability).
4
Restructure headings with Outline so categories match how the topic should be navigated (e.g., “Types of monitoring” and “Approaches to monitoring”).
5
Separate collecting vs centralizing information when those concepts aren’t a strict either-or comparison (e.g., push-based monitoring can still involve instrumentation).
6
Streamline explanations by turning long paragraphs into link-driven sections that point to more focused notes.
7
Modularize with Note Refactor to extract reusable chunks (like “Reasons for monitoring”) and move sections to better-fitting notes (like Instrumentation).

Highlights

The “Monitoring” note is refactored even though nothing inside is wrong—its structure and hierarchy are the real problem.

Strange New Worlds helps inventory not just what exists, but what links to what, making the topic map visible.

ExcaliBrain relationships are encoded as metadata (e.g., Monitoring as a child of Observability and part of Performance) to guide later edits.

Categorizing separates “types” from “approaches,” and further splits “expose” vs “aggregate” to avoid muddled comparisons.

Note Refactor is used to extract sections into new notes, turning a long page into smaller, easier-to-maintain building blocks.

Topics

Note Refactoring
Obsidian Workflow
Continuous Note-Taking
ExcaliBrain Relationships
Modular Notes

Mentioned

Nicole van der Hoeven