Published September 24, 2026.
Direct answer: Use chat for the immediate conversation, repository instructions for repo-scoped working rules, and a shared document or wiki for a changing project record that several people or assistants need to retrieve. These can work together; you may not need a new tool.
By the agent-wiki editorial team. Prepared September 24, 2026. AI-written, with synthetic examples and product affiliation disclosed.
The question is not which container has the most features. It is which source the next person can find, trust and update when the decision changes.
Separate the decision from the instruction to retrieve it
Consider two different pieces of information:
Decision: Harbor exports use UTC timestamps in ISO 8601 format because the reporting team compares exports across time zones.
Working instruction: Before answering questions about Harbor exports, consult the current project decision record and cite the source. If access is unavailable, say so.
The decision is project knowledge. The instruction describes how an assistant should work. Copying the instruction into a supported client configuration does not save the decision or prove the assistant followed it.
In our September 24, 2026 synthetic check, agent-wiki saved the decision, returned an exact readback and found the record by a distinctive marker. We did not establish fresh-conversation recall or comparative superiority over a repository or another document tool.
Choose by the job
| Home | Useful when | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| Current chat | You are exploring or resolving a question in one conversation | Can another authorized person find the final decision later? |
| Repository instructions | Rules govern work inside that repository | Does the actual client load that file in the intended scope? |
| Versioned repository document | Decisions belong with code and the team already reviews changes there | Can the people and assistants doing the handoff access and find it? |
| Shared docs or wiki | The current project record spans people, conversations or repositories | Is there one authoritative page, appropriate access and a reliable retrieval path? |
Chat products differ in history, sharing and memory features; “chat” does not mean information always disappears. Likewise, instruction filenames, loading rules and precedence differ by client. Follow that client's supported setup and preserve existing instructions instead of assuming a universal configuration file.
Keep the smallest workable source of truth
If everyone works in one repository and a reviewed decision document is easy to find, keep using it. A separate wiki may add maintenance without improving the handoff.
If your existing shared docs already hold current decisions and your assistant can retrieve them reliably, test that workflow first. A tool change is not required just because an AI assistant is involved.
A shared wiki becomes worth testing when the job crosses repositories, client projects or team members and the existing approach requires repeated copying. That is a hypothesis about your workflow, not a guarantee of saved time.
Whichever home you choose, name the current owner, include the reason and mark superseded decisions. Avoid copying the full decision into several instruction files: those copies can disagree after an update.
Compare on one actual task
Use a benign project decision and write down its expected answer. Then:
- Save it in your current source and verify the stored text.
- Ask a fresh assistant conversation a natural project question without the answer.
- Check the retrieved source and correctness.
- Test explicit lookup in a separate fresh conversation.
- If considering another store, repeat under comparable access conditions and record the order and any help.
- Return for a later decision change before judging recurring value.
Do not call a coached result unaided, or count a correct guess as sourced retrieval. A second teammate succeeding matters more for a team handoff than another polished demo by its author.
Decide from the result
If your current approach wins, keep it. If the bottleneck is permissions or unclear instructions, fix that before migrating knowledge. If an alternative reduces manual transfer on a recurring task, test with the people who will maintain and pay for it.
We build agent-wiki, a hosted markdown wiki for MCP-connected assistants. You can compare it on one recurring task, but one successful setup is not proof of team adoption, automatic recall or value for money.
Sources checked September 24, 2026: agent-wiki product overview; our tool-accessible document test. The comparison is an editorial decision framework, not a measured vendor benchmark.