init-workspace

Scaffold a ready-to-work, note-centric knowledge project from a short clarifying round followed by either a heavy, self-contained template or a bespoke scaffold built in the same style. Each result includes a folder tree and an AGENTS.md that documents the layout and routes work to the right skills. Add workspace-local references/ and an Obsidian _dashboard/ (Dataview) when the selected template or intake justifies them.

When to use

The user wants to start a note-centric knowledge project and have its structure + conventions laid down. Trigger on "set up / start / initialize / scaffold / bootstrap a workspace or vault for …" when the work is learning, research, writing, academic applications, test preparation, presentations, theory, or another activity whose primary artifacts are notes and documents. Requests in this scope that do not match the eight templates use the bespoke path.

When NOT to use

• The user wants the actual downstream work (mark this essay, write my intro,

prove this lemma). Route to the domain skill, not here.

• The project already exists and is structured — this skill scaffolds, it does

not reorganize. (Re-running is safe — see Merge rules — but it won't restructure an existing layout.)

• For structuring an experiment codebase (source layout for fast hypothesis

testing), use research-codebase. The paper template here is the writing vault and defers code structure to that skill.

• The user wants a software repository, application, package, website, data

pipeline, or other coding project. This skill creates knowledge-work vaults, not source-code scaffolds, even when the user says "start a project."

Template menu

The eight templates are the starting points, not a closed set — see Clarifying intake below for how a request that doesn't cleanly match one of these still gets scaffolded.

Two templates ship AGENTS.md only, for opposite reasons. ielts gets folders plus a dashboard but no references/, because the installed ielts-* skills already carry the band descriptors and feedback aggregation. study-notes is deliberately the leanest in the set — exactly two folders, no references/, no _dashboard/, no agents/ — so its AGENTS.md inlines the whole method rather than seeding files that would add filing decisions to a capture-speed workflow. The other six seed their own references/ so the workspace is self-contained.

Pick study-notes when the work is organized by session (a course, a reading series — each sitting yields one note and one exercise file) and learn-a-topic when it is organized by source and subtopic (mapping an unfamiliar field). Both involve learning; the organizing axis is the discriminator.

Shared agent protocols

Two protocols are identical across templates, so they live once under templates/_shared/agents/ (the single source of truth) rather than being duplicated per template. They are a matched pair split by artifact size: pipeline.md governs substantial artifacts, note-method.md governs everything below that gate.

note-method.md — capture → expand → store → query. Every template's contract says small notes skip the pipeline; this file is what they follow instead, so "skip the pipeline" no longer means "no method." It carries the everyday loop (capture rough fragments, expand after the session, store structured, query to locate rather than to recall), the rule that the raw capture is preserved inside the note rather than deleted once the prose reads well, and the retrieval contract that makes frontmatter and section headers load-bearing rather than cosmetic. Its evidence claims are epistemically flagged — structured formats outscoring unstructured ones is supported, LLM expansion is efficiency-only with retention unmeasured, and the "digital feels easy so it must be shallow" story is marked contested — so the vault does not assert more than the research does.

pipeline.md — evidence → draft → review → verify. A single four-pass protocol run inside the artifact's own file: the evidence table and open review items live in the working file while the pipeline runs and are compressed into a final Sources section, so the pipeline never creates per-stage side files (no research.md/draft.md/review.md/cited.md) and its net output is exactly one file. A size gate restricts it to substantial artifacts; anything smaller falls to note-method.md under the same Operating contract.

Both are generalized and agent-portable: they name capabilities, integrity rules, and an output contract without binding to a particular runtime's tools. At scaffold time both are copied into the vault at <vault>/agents/, so the workspace stays self-contained and portable.

Only the full-pipeline templates get the agents/ folder, and they get both files: paper, theory, learn-a-topic, and research-notebook. Their AGENTS.md Operating contract routes substantial research artifacts through the four passes and small notes through the note loop. The talk, phd-application, ielts, and study-notes templates use a lighter grounding-only contract (no-code + source-grounded + mark-uncertainty, without the pipeline), so they do not receive the agents/ folder. study-notes inlines the capture → expand → store → query rules it needs directly into its AGENTS.md, since adding agents/ would break its two-folder guarantee.

Clarifying intake

Before touching the menu, ask a short, single-batch round of clarifying questions — a handful, not an interview:

1. What is the work, and what does "done" look like? The user's own

description of the project and its end deliverable (a submitted paper, a passed test, a scheduled talk, an admitted application, a mastered topic, or another note-centric knowledge outcome).

1. Project title and target directory. Propose the current directory as the

default by naming its exact path, and ask the user to confirm it or provide a replacement. Their answer to this intake item is the write confirmation; do not ask for the same confirmation again.

1. What, if anything, is different from the typical case? E.g. a survey

instead of a single paper, a co-authored or panel talk, a combined test-prep track, a non-research proof project, a multi-paper application cycle — this is what decides use as-is vs adapt vs bespoke below. If the answer is "nothing, it's a standard X," that's a valid answer and keeps the template as-is.

Keep this to one round. If the original request already supplies an answer, include the understood value in the batch instead of asking for it from scratch. Don't loop back for more detail than these three answers give you: after the user answers, the scaffold should land in that same turn.

Procedure

1. Run the clarifying intake (above) and decide the path:

- Use as-is — the description matches one of the eight template types with no stated differences. Proceed with that template unchanged. - Adapt — matches one type but with named differences. Use that template as the base and adjust only what the differences require: add or remove folders in the Layout, add or trim references/ files, and edit the AGENTS.md prose (title, Layout, routing, type labels, and path-specific Operating-contract wording) to reflect them. Preserve the behavioral guarantees that apply to the base template — non-coding knowledge work, source grounding or non-fabrication, explicit uncertainty, faithful reporting and input checks where present, the one-file pipeline rules where present, Merge rules, and Obsidian formatting — but update folder names and type-specific statements so the contract matches the adapted Layout. agents/note-method.md and the note-method references travel together: learn-a-topic's study-method.md and research-notebook's note-types-and-review-rhythm.md both defer their capture mechanics to it, so an adapted vault that keeps either reference must keep agents/, and one that drops agents/ must fold those mechanics into the reference instead of leaving it pointing at a file the vault does not have. - Bespoke — none of the seven fit. Synthesize a scaffold for this vault only (never write into this repo's templates/) that follows the same shape as the others: a folder tree sized to the actual answers, a full AGENTS.md with the same required sections (title, Operating contract, Layout, routing to whichever existing skills fit the work, Obsidian formatting rules). Its Operating contract must define the work as note-centric and non-coding, prohibit fabrication, require source grounding and marked uncertainty where claims are involved, report only completed work, and check required input notes before running downstream skills. If the work is a substantial source-grounded synthesis or research artifact, also copy both templates/shared/agents/pipeline.md and templates/shared/agents/note-method.md into agents/, exactly like the full-pipeline templates do. Skip a _dashboard/ or references/ unless the answers clearly call for one; a bespoke scaffold should be as lean as the intake justifies, not a eighth heavy template. If the intake still leaves real ambiguity between two types, ask which — don't guess.

1. Use the confirmed target directory. The user's answer to intake item 2

is the confirmation. State the resolved path in the progress update, but do not pause for a second confirmation.

1. Read the template. For use as-is or adapt, open

templates/<type>/AGENTS.md — its Layout section is the authoritative folder list (start from it, then apply any adapt changes). For bespoke, there is no template file to read; draft the AGENTS.md and Layout directly from the intake answers, matching the structure of the closest existing template as a shape reference.

1. Create the folder tree. Make every folder in the (possibly adapted or

bespoke) Layout, adding a .gitkeep to any that starts empty.

1. Copy or write the seeded files. For use as-is, copy the template's

AGENTS.md, references/, and dashboard/ into the target unchanged (see Merge rules). For adapt, copy them and then apply the stated edits. For bespoke, write the AGENTS.md (and any references//dashboard/ the intake justified) directly. For templates or bespoke scaffolds carrying the full-pipeline contract (paper, theory, learn-a-topic, research-notebook, or a bespoke source-grounded synthesis/research artifact), also copy both templates/shared/agents/pipeline.md and templates/shared/agents/note-method.md into <vault>/agents/ so both protocols travel with the vault. talk, phd-application, ielts, study-notes, and any bespoke non-research scaffold use the lighter grounding-only contract and get no agents/ folder.

1. Write the entry-file stub. Write <vault>/CLAUDE.md containing exactly

one line, @AGENTS.md. This makes the operating contract auto-load on Claude Code (which reads CLAUDE.md and follows @ imports) while staying inert for agents that read AGENTS.md natively (Codex, etc.) — so AGENTS.md remains the single source of truth and the vault behaves the same on every runtime. Do this for every path, including ielts and bespoke. (See Merge rules — never clobber an existing CLAUDE.md.)

1. Fill the one-line title. Replace the project-title placeholder at the top

of the AGENTS.md with the user's project name if they gave one; otherwise leave the placeholder.

1. Report. List what was created, say which path was taken (as-is / adapt

/ bespoke) and why, and name the first skill to run (the table above, or — for bespoke — whichever existing skill(s) fit), so the user knows the next move.

Merge rules

Re-running on an existing directory is safe: merge, never overwrite. These rules apply the same way to a use as-is, adapt, or bespoke result. When the user explicitly identifies an already-scaffolded vault, use the intake only to confirm that target and any missing facts needed to fill gaps; do not re-derive or redesign the existing workspace.

• Create missing folders; leave existing ones untouched.
• Write a seeded or bespoke file only if no file of that name already exists

at the destination. Never clobber an existing AGENTS.md, reference, dashboard, agents/ file, or any content file — those may hold the user's work or edits.

• Legacy pipeline migration (the one exception). If <vault>/agents/

contains the retired four role files (researcher.md, reviewer.md, verifier.md, writer.md), those are seeded files from the old per-stage design, not user content: offer to delete them and install pipeline.md and note-method.md in their place so the vault does not carry two conflicting protocols. Confirm with the user before deleting, and keep any of the four they say they have modified.

• If AGENTS.md already exists, do not replace it; report that the workspace

already has one and stop touching it.

• If CLAUDE.md already exists, do not replace it — the user may have their own

imports or memory there. If it does not already pull in AGENTS.md, report that so the user can add @AGENTS.md themselves.

Notes

• Templates assume an Obsidian vault (YAML frontmatter, [[wikilinks]],

_dashboard/ Dataview). The folders are plain folders, so a code editor works too; only the dashboard is Obsidian-specific.

• Seeded and generated Markdown uses soft wrapping, not hard wrapping: keep

each prose paragraph or list item on one physical line and let Obsidian wrap it visually. Insert new physical lines only for new paragraphs or Markdown structure, never merely to satisfy a column width.

• The clarifying round is intentionally short — three questions, one batch, one

turn — not a requirements interview. Its job is to route to use as-is / adapt / bespoke and fill the title and directory, not to extract a full spec. Most requests that clearly name one of the seven types with no stated differences still resolve to use as-is and stay as zero-customization as before.

• The repo's templates/ directory is never written to by a run of this

skill. Adapt and bespoke output only ever land in the target vault; growing the durable template set is a separate, deliberate repo change (see this repo's CLAUDE.md skill-authoring conventions), not something this skill does on a user's behalf mid-scaffold.

• This skill is self-contained: every template lives under templates/ here.