---
name: research-repo-setup
description: "Set up a research repository the team actually reuses — the atomic-insight format (finding + evidence + source + date), the tagging that makes old research findable by new questions, and the check-the-repo-first norm that stops re-researching. Use when asked set up a research repository, we keep re-learning the same things, where do our user insights live, or make past research findable. Produces the repo structure, the insight-entry format, the intake funnel from studies, and the reuse norms."
---

# Research Repo Setup Skill

Teams pay for the same research repeatedly: the churn interviews from last year answer this quarter's question, but they live in a deck nobody remembers, so the question gets re-studied at full price. The repo fixes the *unit* — not "studies" (monolithic decks that answer only their original question) but **atomic insights**: one finding + its evidence + source + date + tags, individually findable by future questions the original study never anticipated. Around the unit: an intake funnel (every study deposits its insights while fresh) and the reuse norm (research requests start with a repo check), because a repo consulted by nobody is a very organized graveyard.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The repo structure** — where it lives (searchable > beautiful), the insight-entry format, the study-index layer
- **The atomic format** — finding (one sentence) · evidence (the support, with its n) · source study + date · tags · confidence
- **The intake funnel** — the end-of-study deposit ritual ([interview-synthesis](../interview-synthesis/SKILL.md) themes flow in directly)
- **The reuse norms** — repo-check-first on new research requests, and the citation habit that keeps entries alive

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The research backlog** — what studies exist (decks, docs, transcripts) and which still get asked about; the back-fill starts with the asked-about, per the greatest-hits rule
- **The question patterns** — what the team repeatedly wants to know (segments? churn drivers? feature reactions?); tags are designed from *future questions*, not past study titles
- **The platform** — wiki, database tool, docs; filterable-by-tag and full-text-searchable are the two requirements, everything else is taste
- **The research producers and consumers** — who deposits, who should check first; the norms name both sides

## Framework: The Repo Rules

1. **Atomize or archive:** the unit is the insight, one per entry — "Enterprise buyers involve security review before contract (8/12 interviews, unprompted; Q3-2025 churn study)" — findable by someone asking about security, buying process, *or* enterprise, none of which the study title mentioned. Whole decks get indexed (the study layer) but the insights are the retrieval surface.
2. **Every entry carries its epistemics:** the n, the sample shape, the date, and the confidence grade ([source-triangulation](../source-triangulation/SKILL.md) levels work) — because a 2023 insight from six interviews *should* be trusted differently than last month's survey of four hundred, and the entry must let a stranger tell.
3. **Tag for future questions:** the tag set comes from the team's recurring question patterns (segment, lifecycle stage, topic, product area) — small, controlled, gardened ([knowledge-gardening](../knowledge-gardening/SKILL.md) owns the vocabulary drift). Free-form tagging balkanizes into synonyms within a quarter.
4. **The funnel is the study's last step:** every research effort ends with the deposit — themes in atomic format, 20 minutes while fresh — wired into the synthesis ritual the way [decision-log-setup](../decision-log-setup/SKILL.md) wires into meetings. Retroactive depositing never happens; the funnel or nothing.
5. **Reuse is a norm with a moment:** every new research request starts with the repo check ("what do we already know?") — findings that answer it get cited *with their dates* ("per Q3-25, revalidate if stale"), and partial answers reshape the new study to fill gaps instead of re-covering ground. The repo's KPI is re-research avoided, visible in study briefs that open with "what the repo already says."

## Output Format

# Research Repo: [team] — lives at [platform]

## The Structure
[The insight entries (retrieval surface) · the study index (provenance layer) · search + tag mechanics]

## The Entry Format
[Finding · evidence + n · source study + date · tags (from the controlled set) · confidence]

## The Intake Funnel
[The end-of-study deposit ritual · who deposits · the 20-minute while-fresh rule]

## Reuse Norms
[Repo-check-first on requests · the cite-with-date habit · the revalidate-if-stale rule · back-fill: the asked-about studies only]

## Quality Checks

- [ ] The unit is the atomic insight, not the study
- [ ] Every entry carries n, date, and confidence
- [ ] Tags come from a controlled, question-shaped vocabulary
- [ ] The deposit ritual is wired into how studies already end
- [ ] New research briefs open with the repo's existing answer

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not file decks and call it a repo — un-atomized studies answer only their original question
- [ ] Do not strip the epistemics — undated unconfidenced insights age into misinformation
- [ ] Do not free-form the tags — synonym sprawl is findability death by kindness
- [ ] Do not plan retroactive mass back-fill — the funnel forward, greatest hits backward
- [ ] Do not build it without the check-first norm — deposits without withdrawals is a savings account for a library fire

## Example Trigger Phrases

- "Set up a research repository."
- "We keep re-learning the same things."
- "Where do our user insights live?"
- "Make past research findable."