agentleFS
dexio-wikidexio-wiki/llm-wiki-skills/skills/wiki-record/SKILL.md

wiki-record

Skill1 starsChanged 47 days agoMITView on GitHub

File a decision, finding or fact into an LLM wiki the right way: find the page that already covers it, make the smallest edit that records it, keep frontmatter and dates current, link it to its neighbors, cite where it came from, and leave a change note. Use whenever an agent settles something durable that should outlive the conversation, or a person says to put something in the wiki.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    commit hashes, PR numbers, and other details the code host already records

    line 31
  2. Distinctive:

    If you mention another page's subject by name, make it a link.

    line 75
  3. Very specific:

    If what you are recording contradicts the page, do not overwrite it.

    line 85

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Record something in a wiki

The wiki is only as good as what goes in and where it lands. Two failures account for most of the mess in agent-kept wikis: new pages for topics that already have one, and whole-page rewrites that silently drop what another writer added. Both are avoided by searching first and editing small.

Does it belong?

Record it if someone (a person or another agent) will need it again and could not cheaply rederive it:

  • decisions, with the date, who made them and why
  • verified facts about the organization, its systems, its customers or its market
  • procedures that worked, and the pitfalls found on the way
  • synthesized answers that took real research (file those with wiki-query)

Leave it out:

  • routine progress, TODOs, and status that will be stale in a week
  • raw transcripts or chat logs (keep a source under raw/ via wiki-ingest if it matters)
  • commit hashes, PR numbers, and other details the code host already records
  • secrets of any kind: tokens, keys, passwords, connection strings, payment details (wiki-lint flags credential-shaped strings; write where a credential lives, never the value)
  • anything private a person has not said is fine to share with everyone who reads the wiki

Steps

  1. Search for the owning page (wiki-orient, step 4). One topic, one page. If a page covers the topic, you are editing it, even if you would have organized it differently.
  2. Create a page only past the threshold. A new page is justified when the subject is likely to matter again, appears in several sources, or is central to one authoritative source. A passing mention goes on the page that mentions it. Put the page in the folder the schema assigns to its kind, with a lowercase hyphenated file name.
  3. Make the smallest edit that records it. Change the section that is wrong or add a line to the section it belongs in. Rewrite a whole page only when you created it in this task or the page is being deliberately restructured (wiki-refactor).
  4. Write the claim so it survives.
    • Date anything that can change: "Team plan is $10 a member (pricing page, read 2026-09-28)", not "Team plan is $10".
    • Say where it came from: a source URL, a raw file, a person and date, or the page it was derived from. Put the source next to the claim if the page has several sources.
    • Label trust when it is not first-hand, with the schema's labels in brackets after the claim: (vendor-sourced) for a company's claim about itself, (estimate) for derived figures, (unverified) for anything recalled, unconfirmed or unsourced, with the reason after a colon when it helps ((unverified: from one chat, not checked)).
    • For a decision: what was decided, when, by whom, the reason, and what it replaced.
  5. Update the frontmatter. Bump updated. Add the source to sources. Make sure description still says what the page holds after your change. New pages get the full frontmatter the schema asks for; the default is:

    ---
    title: Page Title
    description: One line on what the page answers or holds.
    created: YYYY-MM-DD
    updated: YYYY-MM-DD
    type: entity | concept | comparison | procedure | decision | query | summary
    tags: [from-the-schema-taxonomy]
    sources: [where the content came from]
    ---
  6. Link it. Link the new content to the pages it depends on, and link to it from the one or two pages a reader would come from. Aim for at least two useful links on a new page. If you mention another page's subject by name, make it a link.
  7. Leave a change note. Git: a commit message saying what changed and why, one change per commit. Hosted wiki: the note field on the write, with your agent name. "Add Q3 pricing from vendor page; replaces August figure" is a note. "Update page" is not. A plain folder has no history: there the dates and sources in the text are the record, so keep a dated line of anything you replace, and suggest putting the wiki in git.
  8. Tell the person what you recorded and where, by path, in one line.

Conflicts

If what you are recording contradicts the page, do not overwrite it. Follow wiki-conflicts: check dates and provenance, keep both claims if it is unresolved, and flag it.

Pitfalls

  • Appending a new dated section to the bottom of a page every time. The page becomes a log and the current answer is buried. Update the section the fact belongs in; history keeps the old version.
  • Recording your own inference as a finding. Mark it as your read ("likely", "our estimate") and give the evidence it rests on.
  • Several lists agreeing is not corroboration when they were drawn from the same place. Name what a source could and could not have seen before quoting a rate from it.
  • Writing for yourself. Write for an agent that has never seen this conversation.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.