Compile Core

compile-core — compile an assigned source into wiki pages

You compile the sources your brief assigns and nothing else. A gap in them is reported, never filled from your own knowledge. The page schema, its frontmatter fields and the confidence ordinal live in contract/schema-s4.md and contract/confidence-rubric.md beside this slice — read them rather than recalling them.

1 · Read, then choose the depth

Read the source in full first. Depth is decided after the read — never from a filename, folder, length or marker, none of which separate a research-worthy source from an ordinary one.

Your brief names the run's authorised range (default: all three). Never choose outside it. If a source genuinely needs a depth the range excludes, compile at the nearest authorised depth, say so, and report it as a gap.

Three triggers, judged on the source you have just read:

• T1 · Reuse — original figures, a reimplementable method, or wording where a paraphrase would falsify the claim.
• T2 · Proximity — it bears on a topic the owner's own pages name, or on an open question the wiki already holds (a ## Conflicts / Open Questions block, a flagged: page). Where those pages are outside your reading list, read T2 as "a topic with at least three source pages in wiki/index.md"; where the wiki is too small for that, say so once and work in concise or standard only.
• T3 · Novelty — it adds something no existing page holds.

research = T1 ∧ T2 · concise = ¬T3 · standard = everything else.

Overrides, which fire regardless of the triggers: a source that is the owner's own work is never below standard; a source that corrects an existing wiki page is always research, because a correction has to be exact; a source whose conversion collapsed word boundaries can never be research (verbatim quoting is impossible on it) — compile at standard and say so.

Name the evidence or drop a rung. Every depth you record carries a locator: research — T1 (Table 3 ablation) · T2 (calibration, an owner page), concise — ¬T3 (link post, all three tools already have pages). A trigger letter with empty parentheses is a defect, not a record. Where you cannot name the evidence, take the lower rung.

What each depth changes:

• standard (the usual outcome) — articles, blogs, posts, docs. Sections 2–4 as written.
• concise — thin or fully redundant sources: a concise summary, minimal bullets, new pages only for genuinely new entities or concepts.
• research — primary material the owner will need to reuse exactly. Preserve exact figures (no rounding), quote critical claims verbatim with section or page references, mark anything not directly stated as unverified, never infer a number, use the research template below, add the academic frontmatter, and cross-check findings against existing pages, flagging confirmations and contradictions explicitly. Long block quotes stay in the raw file — link, never transplant.

Record it always: the source page carries depth:, and your report carries the depth with its locator for every source.

2 · The source page

Write to wiki/sources/<slug>.md, kebab-case, inside your file whitelist.

Both templates are copied verbatim from the ingest skill, comments included. Where a comment cites CLAUDE.md §4.x, the text it points at is in the contract/ slices you hold: §4.1–§4.6 in contract/schema-s4.md, the confidence rubric in contract/confidence-rubric.md.

Standard and concise depth:

---
title: "Source: <Human Title>"
type: source
depth: concise | standard | research   # the depth you chose (Depth) — required on every source page
confidence: medium   # per CLAUDE.md §4.6 — reflects the source: peer-reviewed/expert→authoritative · preprint/official-doc/owner-work/faithful-summary(default)→high · secondary or adjacent-only grounding→medium · promo/social/transcript→low (grounding strength, not source count; a user instruction can override the tier)
audited: <YYYY-MM-DD>   # today — assignment with the source in context is the check (§4.6); on updating an existing page, re-check its badge and re-stamp
tags: [topic]
sources: [raw/2-papers/report.md, raw/2-papers/report.pdf]   # converted .md AND original; one entry if native .md or URL
source_url: "<original web URL if a clip — else omit>"        # de-dup
source_hash: "<first 16 hex chars of the raw file's sha256>"   # de-dup — the length the pre-flight greps
created: <YYYY-MM-DD>
updated: <YYYY-MM-DD>
---

## Summary
[The core summary, with the detail its claims need.]

## Key Takeaways
- ...

## Related
- [[EntityName]] — why related
- [[Concept Name]] — why related

Research depth (replaces the template above):

---
title: "Paper: <Title>"
type: source
depth: research
confidence: high   # authoritative if peer-reviewed/published; see CLAUDE.md §4.6
audited: <YYYY-MM-DD>   # today — assignment with the source in context is the check (§4.6)
tags: [paper, <field>]
authors: [<First Author>, <…>]
year: <YYYY>
venue: "<journal / conference>"
doi: "<DOI or stable URL>"
sources: [raw/2-papers/<file>.pdf, raw/2-papers/<file>.md]   # original + converted
created: <YYYY-MM-DD>
updated: <YYYY-MM-DD>
---

## Citation
<full reference string>

## Research Question
## Methodology
## Key Findings
- <finding with exact figures, e.g. "+12.3 BLEU, p<0.01">
## Data / Setup
## Contributions
## Limitations & Threats to Validity
## Relation to Wiki
- Confirms [[…]]; contradicts [[…]] → flag a `## Conflicts / Open Questions` block on that page
## Key Quotes
> "<verbatim>" (§/p.)
## Open Questions / Follow-ups
## Related
- [[…]]

Dual provenance: for a converted source, sources: lists both the converted .md and the original (file path, or the URL for a web or video source). Where the head sorts the raw file after you close, predict the post-sort path so the link does not break — your brief names it.

Research depth is not paper-only. T1 ∧ T2 fire on any primary source whose exact wording matters (a regulation, an institutional handbook, a contract, a policy document). Keep the frontmatter fields that exist (no DOI → omit it; venue: takes the issuing body and version) and replace the paper-shaped middle sections with genre-fitting equivalents (Scope & Applicability · Requirements & Thresholds · Deadlines & Milestones · Governance). The obligations never flex — exact figures, verbatim quotes with locators, ## Relation to Wiki, ## Related — and you declare the substitution on the page and in your report.

3 · Confidence

Assign every page's confidence: from contract/confidence-rubric.md, on source authority × verification × derivation, and stamp audited: with today's date in the same pass — the stamp is the audit trail, so never stamp a badge you did not check. Judge by grounding strength, not source count: one source primary for the page's own claims grounds high alone; a strong source primary only for something adjacent, or reputable-secondary grounding, is medium; a single paragraph in a single witness is low. Compiled pages cap at high, the cap being a ceiling and never a demotion. On a tie take the lower tier, and never raise an existing page's tier — you may propose a raise with the evidence, and the head reads the source before any raise stands. Report each page's tier with the reason that decided it.

4 · Network the knowledge

Add the links the source warrants, and only the pages the schema warrants.

• Models and benchmarks are first-class. Any LLM named gets a page under wiki/models/, any evaluation dataset a page under wiki/benchmarks/, and the link runs both ways: the source under the model or benchmark page's ## Appears in, the models and benchmarks under the source page's ## Related.
• A product name is a model mention. A source that names an LLM product or family even once, even as a licence or plan name (ChatGPT Edu, GPT-4o, Claude, Qwen), links the family's model page from ## Related — ChatGPT and every GPT-n fold into [[GPT]] — and says on the page what the source names; the model page's ## Appears in gains the source. The link does not require an individually named model (schema §4.5).
• Reuse, never duplicate. Fold a variant into its existing page (a point release into the family page, a subset benchmark into its parent) rather than creating a near-twin. Canonicalise every name against wiki/index.md in name mode (grep -o '^- \[\[[^]|]*' wiki/index.md | sed 's/^- \[\[//') before you write it — never a whole read.
• A page exists → read it and merge incrementally. Never clobber, and never silently overwrite a contradiction: keep both statements under ## Conflicts / Open Questions and report it. A conflict never pauses you.
• The stub rule. A tool or an entity that the source gives one paragraph or one row, with no second witness, is a fact on the source page — never a link and never a page. A link forces a page, and a one-paragraph page carries no behaviour the fact would not. Create a tool, entity or concept page only where it has enough substance for the ## Definition and ## Key Points the schema requires. Models and benchmarks keep their rule above: they get pages either way.
• Every page you write ends with a ## Related section carrying at least one link (no orphans), and every link you write resolves to a real page or to a target in your emitted claims.