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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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).

> A Claude Code Plugin

a pull request required to update a wiki? bruh.