Best Practices for Structuring a Second Brain Using Obsidian or Walrus Across LLM Models

·Jun 21, 2026 09:17 PM(edited)·

So who here has seriously built a second brain that they use for their clients, their own personal development work and maybe a work. Are you all using Claude Code and Obsidian for that? Or are you using something like Walrus so that it can retain memories across different LLLM models? What are some best practices on structure? How would you structure it so that it becomes clear and usable? I'm looking for some ideas on how to do this. Do you have a different vault for work SOPs that can be used across projects, for individual clients, for any personal development goals?

👍1

14 comments

· Sorted by Oldest

Ozan D.
·
·
separate vaults per client is the move. one thing that helped me — naming files by when-you-need-it instead of what-it-is. "client-onboarding-first-call" vs "onboarding-SOP-v3" makes retrieval way faster when you're mid-conversation and can't afford to dig. Claude Projects handles the per-project structure pretty well if you don't need cross-model portability
🙌1
Jared R.
·
·
i'm thinking about computer.io for this
Sana C.
·
·
Jared R. won't checkpoint and move to a reusable vault though. Each conversation is only as actionable as you creating the action items and moving it to your kanban or other productivity system. More importantly you loose the rest of the context you did not immediately turn into an action item.
Jared R.
·
·
it stores everything
Jared R.
·
·
you can create unique folders
Jared R.
·
·
Laura F.
Laura F.
·
·
Yes! And you can specify which folder you want to use for each client always. thanks for the shoutout, Sana C. let me know if you want to chat more!
Sana C.
·
·
Would love to Laura. Please DM me your calendar
Jared R.
·
·
I was hearing all this and I'm like, I'm pretty sure this is EXACTLY what computer was built for Laura F.
Jared R.
·
·
this community rocks
Sana C.
·
·
Laura F. only context on clients or canonical agency practices too? What about personal brain? Stick to computer.io or other vaults for that?
Sana C.
·
(edited)·
Love the rec Jared R., and Laura F. the multiplayer angle is cool. I took a look, but I think Computer is solving a different problem. It's built around deals and pipeline. What I'm after is a layer underneath that: canonical SOPs that travel across clients, a personal brain that compounds over time, and structure I can actually retrieve mid-conversation without digging. Computer stores context about accounts. I need context about *how I work* and *what I know*, separate from any single client or deal. The closest I've seen to that combo is Obsidian (local vault, you own it) plus Claude Projects per client, with files named by when-you-need-them not what-they-are (that Ozan D. tip is underrated). Curious if anyone's actually cracked the SOP + personal brain layer, or if we're all still duct-taping it together In fact is there interest on a round table for this?
Laura F.
·
·
Sana C. although computer.io has a strong sales use case - it was actually built specifically to traverse and compound memory across the enterprise (in your case, customers) over time. The enterprise memory layer is what makes computer work. happy to talk more about it!
👍1
👀1
Taimur
·
·
I actually think the required duct tape is part of the solution. It gives the user-org a lot more flexibility to put together something that is more suited to granular requirements. I suspect that users might end up becoming more technical and able to stitch together company brain ‘flows’ that are immediately applicable.
1

Ozan D.
·
·
separate vaults per client is the move. one thing that helped me — naming files by when-you-need-it instead of what-it-is. "client-onboarding-first-call" vs "onboarding-SOP-v3" makes retrieval way faster when you're mid-conversation and can't afford to dig. Claude Projects handles the per-project structure pretty well if you don't need cross-model portability
🙌1
Jared R.
·
·
i'm thinking about computer.io for this
Sana C.
·
·
Jared R. won't checkpoint and move to a reusable vault though. Each conversation is only as actionable as you creating the action items and moving it to your kanban or other productivity system. More importantly you loose the rest of the context you did not immediately turn into an action item.
Jared R.
·
·
it stores everything
Jared R.
·
·
you can create unique folders
Jared R.
·
·
Laura F.
Laura F.
·
·
Yes! And you can specify which folder you want to use for each client always. thanks for the shoutout, Sana C. let me know if you want to chat more!
Sana C.
·
·
Would love to Laura. Please DM me your calendar
Jared R.
·
·
I was hearing all this and I'm like, I'm pretty sure this is EXACTLY what computer was built for Laura F.
Jared R.
·
·
this community rocks
Sana C.
·
·
Laura F. only context on clients or canonical agency practices too? What about personal brain? Stick to computer.io or other vaults for that?
Sana C.
·
(edited)·
Love the rec Jared R., and Laura F. the multiplayer angle is cool. I took a look, but I think Computer is solving a different problem. It's built around deals and pipeline. What I'm after is a layer underneath that: canonical SOPs that travel across clients, a personal brain that compounds over time, and structure I can actually retrieve mid-conversation without digging. Computer stores context about accounts. I need context about *how I work* and *what I know*, separate from any single client or deal. The closest I've seen to that combo is Obsidian (local vault, you own it) plus Claude Projects per client, with files named by when-you-need-them not what-they-are (that Ozan D. tip is underrated). Curious if anyone's actually cracked the SOP + personal brain layer, or if we're all still duct-taping it together In fact is there interest on a round table for this?
Laura F.
·
·
Sana C. although computer.io has a strong sales use case - it was actually built specifically to traverse and compound memory across the enterprise (in your case, customers) over time. The enterprise memory layer is what makes computer work. happy to talk more about it!
👍1
👀1
Taimur
·
·
I actually think the required duct tape is part of the solution. It gives the user-org a lot more flexibility to put together something that is more suited to granular requirements. I suspect that users might end up becoming more technical and able to stitch together company brain ‘flows’ that are immediately applicable.
1