maintaining an LLM wiki has been a lot more effort than I thought, at least if we are trying to maintain a high quality in structure and writing comprehension (for easier lookups both for the agent and human). Are people just shotgunning their agent wikis or how
We need to make an effort to distinguish “this is a thing for humans” vs “this is a thing for bots” in our naming IMHO. In that respect, “open wiki” is not such a great name. “Agent Wiki” or similar would be better.
Without such a qualifier, “wiki” carries a strong connotation of (usually collaborative) human involvement. That’s literally what it’s famous for.
Thats just my $0.02 on the naming. I definitely think it’s a worthwhile idea. All the best.
Unless it's about motivation and other things that can't be inferred from the code (and comments on such are missing), just ask the agent. Give it an LSP or code intel MCP to do it better.
I agree with others this seems somewhat over-engineered; you can get similar results with a good prompt/skill; I guess the rest of the implementation here is intended as an agent-maintainer.
23 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 56.8 ms ] threadThis could have been a SKILL
Without such a qualifier, “wiki” carries a strong connotation of (usually collaborative) human involvement. That’s literally what it’s famous for.
Thats just my $0.02 on the naming. I definitely think it’s a worthwhile idea. All the best.
I might have pasted this before I was registered, but I am definitely not a bot. Just new.
Where did you see the duplicated content?
https://github.com/langchain-ai/openwiki/blob/main/openwiki/...
I agree with others this seems somewhat over-engineered; you can get similar results with a good prompt/skill; I guess the rest of the implementation here is intended as an agent-maintainer.
Having verbose, duplicated, incorrect, outdated or incomplete docs often leads to worse performance for AI