study-repos-first

name

study-repos-first

description

The Lossless Group's discipline of pinning a curated collection of upstream repos (a "study") around a domain question *before* designing or coding in that domain. Use when starting work that touches conventions, file formats, schemas, protocols, or any decision where prior art exists; when the user mentions "study", "studies/", "reference collection", "prior art", "pin a submodule", or names of existing studies (open-specs-and-standards, memory-layers-for-agents, data-analytics-specifications-and-standards); when scaffolding a new study, extending one, or deciding whether something belongs in a study vs. a project. Encodes the "read upstream code, don't paraphrase from training data" behavior.

Study Repos First

A study is a curated reference collection — a directory of upstream specs, prior art, reference implementations, papers, or codebases — pinned as git submodules before a decision is made or a feature is built. It is not a project (it ships nothing) and not documentation (it lives, it's checked-out code). It is a reading list with structure, pinned so it never rots out from under us.

This skill is foundational and iterative. It will be expanded as we work through real studies together. Treat the contents as the current best understanding, not the final word.

When to use this skill

• Starting any task in ai-labs/ (or any pseudomonorepo) where the question is about conventions — naming, file shapes, folder layouts, schemas, protocols, manifest formats — rather than novel logic
• The user says "let's study X", "what's the prior art on X", "how do other projects handle X", "pin a reference", "add a submodule under studies/"
• A design decision is on the table and the temptation is to let the agent fill in patterns from training data
• Scaffolding a new studies/<topic-slug>/ directory
• Adding a reference to an existing study (new submodule, README update)
• Deciding whether a study has outgrown a subdirectory and should be promoted to its own repo (the lossless-group/study-<slug> pattern)
• Reading from a study to ground a current implementation question

The behavioral core (this is the actual skill)

Don't paraphrase from training data when pinned upstream code is — or could be — one cd away.

When a domain question comes up:

1. Check if a study already covers it. Look in ai-labs/studies/ (and any studies/ directory walking up the tree). If a study exists, read from the pinned submodules, not from memory.
2. If no study exists and the question is meaningful, propose one. Frame the question first; pick a slug; set up the directory.
3. Cite findings with file paths — studies/<topic>/<repo>/<file>:<line> — so the user can jump to the upstream source.
4. Do not summarize or paraphrase upstream specs into prose unless asked. The upstream repo is the artifact. A paragraph paraphrasing llms.txt is a hot take that will rot.

The two failure modes this skill exists to prevent:

• Generating plausible-but-stale conventions that the agent recalled from training data when real upstream code disagrees.
• Reinventing patterns (front-matter shapes, lockfile structures, skill manifests) that three or four mature projects have already converged on.

What a study is — and isn't

Is	Isn't
A curated reference collection pinned at known SHAs	A summary or paraphrase of those references
Scoped to a single domain question	A junk drawer of "stuff we might read someday"
Read from during development to answer concrete questions	A teaching or onboarding artifact
Self-contained — submodules nest inside the study	A project that ships, builds, or runs in CI
Stable — submodule SHAs are pinned and don't auto-bump	Living docs that update on every upstream commit

How to set up a new study

Follow studies/README.md (the canonical version in each pseudomonorepo) and studies/CLAUDE.md. The shape:

1. Name the question. A study is for a domain question, not a wishlist. Examples that work: "How do open specs structure agent-facing files?", "What conventions exist for AI evaluation harnesses?" Write the question into the study's README.md first; everything else hangs off it.

2. Pick the directory. studies/<topic-slug>/. Use a slug that reads naturally (open-specs-and-standards, not oss).

3. Pin references as submodules. For each upstream you want to study, add it as a git submodule inside the study, not at the root of ai-labs. Submodules pin a SHA; what you read today is what someone reads in a month, even if the upstream rewrites history.

4. Write the README. At minimum:

   • The question being investigated.
   • For each reference: link, maintainer, one-paragraph "why this is here".
   • Optionally: a reading-checklist or list of sub-inquiries (what to compare, what to extract).

5. Add an inquiry log when the work warrants it: a context-v/inquiry/ (or similar) folder for in-progress notes, tree dumps, and findings. Inquiry notes are yours, separate from the upstream material.

6. Promote when it grows. When a study accumulates more than four or five references, or starts to grow its own tooling (parsers, scripts, visualizations), promote it to its own GitHub repo at lossless-group/study-<topic-slug> and make it a single submodule of ai-labs. The in-place subdirectory becomes a submodule pointer; the study's nested references stay nested. See open-specs-and-standards/ as the worked example.

How to extend an existing study

The user may say "add a reference" or "extend the study". Default workflow:

1. Confirm the study's question is still the right home. If it isn't, suggest a new study rather than stretching scope. Boundless studies become junk drawers.
2. Add the upstream as a submodule inside the study's repo — not at the ai-labs root. Studies are self-contained.
3. Update the study's README to include the new reference: link, maintainer, one-paragraph "why this is here". Match the section structure already in the README; don't invent a new section unless the reference genuinely doesn't fit.
4. Stage and let the user review before committing. Don't auto-commit submodule additions — the user typically reviews the README addition alongside the gitlink.

The submodule add command, concretely

From inside the study directory (e.g. studies/open-specs-and-standards/):

git submodule add <repo-url> <local-path>

The <local-path> should be a sensible slug derived from the repo name. After adding, the parent's .gitmodules will gain a new entry and the gitlink will appear unstaged.

Anti-patterns

• Writing summaries instead of pinning code. A paragraph paraphrasing what llms.txt does isn't a study — it's a hot take that will rot. The upstream repo is the artifact.
• Boundless scope. A study without a question becomes a junk drawer. When in doubt, split into two studies.
• Treating it like docs. A study isn't trying to teach. It's a place to find evidence when a decision is on the table.
• Auto-bumping submodule SHAs to upstream HEAD. Pinned SHAs are the point. Bump only when explicitly asked.
• Adding submodules at the ai-labs root instead of nested inside the study. Studies are self-contained.
• Writing "summary" or "interpretation" docs into a study repo without the user's go-ahead. Studies are reading lists, not commentary.

Cross-skill ties

This skill composes with the others:

• pseudomonorepos — studies/ lives inside a pseudomonorepo. Walk up the tree to check whether a parent-level study covers the same question before creating one in a child.
• context-vigilance — inquiry notes that do belong in context-v/ (questions you're chasing, comparisons you're making) follow context-vigilance conventions: frontmatter, wikilinks, the four cognitive modes.
• git-conventions — when committing a new submodule or study, the commit message follows the standard structure (new(study): ..., update(study): add <ref>).

When working on a study, multiple skills apply. Don't pick one — let them all inform what you do.

Typical flow when a domain question arises

1. Locate yourself. pwd. Walk up to find the nearest studies/ directory (and any nested ones).
2. Scan for an existing study that names this domain. Check studies/<slug>/README.md for the question.
3. If found: read the relevant submodule(s). Cite paths. Answer from upstream code.
4. If not found: ask the user — "there's no study for this; want to set one up, or shortcut?" — and follow the setup steps above if they say yes.
5. If shipping fast without a study, log refactor debt: "answered X without grounding in pinned upstream — candidate study: ". Honesty about the shortcut is what makes the refactor possible.

See also

• studies/README.md (in each pseudomonorepo) — canonical concept doc, current studies index
• studies/CLAUDE.md (in each pseudomonorepo) — operational instructions for working in studies/
• pseudomonorepos/SKILL.md — the surrounding tree-walking discipline
• context-vigilance/SKILL.md — conventions for inquiry notes that live in context-v/

---

Status: foundational. This skill will grow as we work through real studies. Expected refinements over time: concrete patterns for inquiry notes, reusable READMEs, the "promote to standalone repo" mechanics, the comparison/extraction templates, and the boundary between "study" and "project".