# Wiki Term Research > Create deeply researched wiki term entries with web research, practical examples, and cross-references. Use when the user asks to "create a wiki term," "write a term entry," "add a glossary definition," "research a concept," "define this term," or when a meeting ingestion identifies terms to create. Produces comprehensive entries with external citations, worked examples, and detailed breakdowns. Works with any domain wiki using markdown content. - Skill: `aaronvanston/wiki-term-research` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add aaronvanston/wiki-term-research` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/aaronvanston/wiki-term-research/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: aaronvanston (https://skillmd.com/u/aaronvanston) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/aaronvanston/wiki-term-research --- # Wiki Term Research Create production-quality, deeply researched wiki term entries that serve as both quick reference and comprehensive learning resource. Every term goes through mandatory web research, cross-reference validation, and quality checks. ## Inputs - **Term name**: The concept to research and document. - **Domain context** (optional): The industry or subject area for the wiki (e.g., "construction finance", "healthcare compliance", "SaaS metrics"). - **Depth override** (optional): User may request "quick" (abbreviated) or "comprehensive" (maximum depth). Default: comprehensive. ## Before You Start 1. **Find the wiki content directory.** Look for a `WRITING_GUIDE.md`, `AGENTS.md`, or a `src/content/` directory structure. 2. **Read the writing guide** if one exists. It is the canonical source for formatting rules. If anything in this skill contradicts a project-specific writing guide, **the writing guide wins**. 3. **Scan existing terms** to calibrate depth, tone, and conventions: - List the terms directory to see existing file names and categories. - Read 2-3 related terms to understand the expected quality level. --- ## Workflow ### Phase 1: Orientation and Existing Content Audit 1. **Search for existing entries** on this topic. Check if the term already exists (update vs. create). 2. **Scan existing categories and tags** by reading related terms to understand conventions. 3. **Determine the slug** -- use kebab-case, descriptive, with regional suffixes only when meaning materially differs. 4. **Read 3-5 closely related entries** to understand gaps and cross-reference opportunities. ### Phase 2: Web Research (MANDATORY) **This phase is NOT optional.** Every term entry must be backed by web research. Read [references/research-guide.md](references/research-guide.md) for search query patterns and source quality hierarchy. At minimum: - Run **3+ WebSearch queries** to find authoritative definitions, industry standards, and practical guidance. - **Fetch 1-3 authoritative pages** via WebFetch to extract exact definitions, requirements, and examples. ### Phase 3: Compose the Entry Read [references/article-template.md](references/article-template.md) for the full template and usage notes. **Mandatory sections:** - **TLDR** -- 2-4 sentences. What is it? Why does it matter? - **What it is** -- clear definition expanding on the summary. - **How it works** -- mechanics, process, or application. - **Practical example** -- concrete worked example with realistic data. - **External references** -- minimum 3 links to reputable sources. **Optional sections (include when relevant):** - Regional/jurisdictional detail - Standard provisions or specifications - Common pitfalls - Industry role / why it matters for the product ### Phase 4: Cross-Reference Validation 1. **Verify all `related` slugs exist.** If a related slug doesn't exist, include it but note it as a missing term. 2. **Check aliases won't cause false auto-linking.** Avoid single common words. Multi-word phrases and specific acronyms are safe. 3. **Update related terms** -- check whether 2-3 closely related existing terms should add this new term to their `related` list. ### Phase 5: Quality Validation **Frontmatter checklist:** - [ ] Title is specific and matches the slug - [ ] Summary is exactly one sentence, plain language - [ ] Tags are concrete and searchable (5-8 tags) - [ ] Categories use an existing category from the wiki - [ ] Aliases are precise, no generic words - [ ] Related has 3-6 entries using slug format **Content checklist:** - [ ] TLDR present and useful in 15 seconds - [ ] At least one practical example with realistic data - [ ] At least 3 external references with URLs - [ ] Entry reads cleanly with `##`/`###` hierarchy - [ ] A reader can get the gist in 60 seconds **Research checklist:** - [ ] At least 3 WebSearch queries were executed - [ ] At least 1 authoritative source was fetched and read - [ ] No unsourced claims about requirements or standards ### Phase 6: Missing Term Identification After writing the entry, review concepts mentioned in the body that are NOT in the wiki. Output a "Suggested future terms" list with term name and a one-sentence justification for each. --- ## Reference Files - **[references/article-template.md](references/article-template.md)** -- Full article template with all sections and usage notes. - **[references/research-guide.md](references/research-guide.md)** -- Search query patterns, source quality hierarchy, and research methodology.