https://github.com/microsoft/skills/tree/main/.github/plugin... is similar, works for Claude Code, too. I ported it to Pi: https://pi.dev/packages/@amb007/deep-wiki?name=deep-wiki Elsewhere, I added deep-wiki:lookup that's like deep-wiki:ask but giving precedence to the wiki instead of the code.

Maybe it is me, but I am much more interested in a way to maintaining a wiki.

Ideally something that doesn't require rescanning all the sources and something that can verify that the wiki is correct.

I’ve done this for my health records but my Claude web app (which I want to be able to access them) can’t read GitHub as effectively as it can a huge markdown file that just collects all materials into a single 15,000 line text file I reupload every week or so.

So even though I’ve done the whole wiki / knowledge base thing. The most efficient way of handing it over as a universal file to GPT and Claude for analysis.

Claude web app cannot automatically read from my github private repo. I need to attach it every time manually.

Claude Code works though. But now I can’t share this with non-technical users

Is this a name collision or is the related to the DAIR institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Artificial_Intelli...

I was similarly confused, and did some digging to determine that they are not related:

https://twitter.com/DAIRInstitute/status/1830719509931663411...

Looking at the name that keeps showing up on the linked site, I suspect a collision is most likely (to be charitable).

If the contributor instructions for your wiki requires:

1. forking the repo

2. committing the changes

3. submitting a pull request

... then you don't have a wiki.

I agree and I'm guilty of creating what is effectively a heavily hyperlinked knowledgebase and calling it a wiki. Unfortunately, only a tiny majority will ever create or edit a page despite the incredibly low barrier of a web browser without minimal authentication.

From Ward Cunningham himself:

"A wiki invites all users—not just experts—to edit any page or to create new pages within the wiki website, using only a standard 'plain-vanilla' Web browser without any extra add-ons."

"A wiki is not a carefully crafted site created by experts and professional writers and designed for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the typical visitor/user in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the website landscape."

---

Wikipedia is effectively a crafted site that is maintained by experts (or at the very least very knowledgeable amateurs who 'own' certain domains) designed for casual visitors. The idea of a Wiki is great but in practice I'm less confident it exists as envisioned.

I've been thinking about something in this space, actually... it feels like this is much more a UX/social problem -- in that a wiki can very much be modeled as a repo with a very permissive auto-merge bot (e.g. if PR only touches unprotected pages and user is registered, allow merge)

> it feels like this is much more a UX/social problem

It's not merely "like" that. That's what it is.

"Wiki" comes from the Hawaiian work for "quick". You spot an error, you click the button to change it, and the change is made. That's wiki.

"Open a pull request and get it approved" is not wiki. It's what the default collaboration model was before wikis and exactly why the wiki was invented (to replace it).

If the PR automatically gets approved (given checks) then pushing the merge button is just going from draft to published.

Being able to work on a draft without publishing, and incorporate changes (i.e. rebasing) should make your life easier not harder.

I find this really annoying too. A wiki is not a knowledge base. For some reason people into LLM's seem to have decided to call things wikis, I am guessing because they want the credibility wikis have.

> A Claude Code Plugin

a pull request required to update a wiki? bruh.