generating-lattice
Generating Lattice
Generate and maintain lat.md/ knowledge graphs — structured, cross-referenced
markdown anchored to source code symbols. The output is validated by the lat
CLI, which catches documentation drift whenever code or docs change.
The core mechanism is bidirectional linking:
- Top-down (docs → code):
[[src/auth.js#getValidToken]]wiki links inlat.md/files point to specific symbols in source. When a symbol is renamed or deleted,lat checkcatches the broken link. - Bottom-up (code → docs):
// @lat: [[auth#Token Refresh]]comments in source point back to the concept they implement. When a section is renamed or removed,lat checkcatches the dangling reference.
Without both directions, the lattice is a static essay that drifts silently.
With both, lat check enforces consistency.
Dependency: Requires mapping-codebases skill. The structural maps
(_MAP.md files) are the input that makes LLM-assisted authoring
token-efficient — read maps to understand API surfaces, then selectively read
source files only where design rationale lives.
Installation
npm install -g lat.md
lat --version # verify (requires Node.js 22+)
The lat CLI provides lat check (validation), lat search (semantic
search), lat section (browsing), lat refs (reference lookup), and lat mcp
(agent integration).
Generation Pipeline
Phase 1: Structural Scan
Ensure _MAP.md files exist. Generate them if missing:
# Install mapping-codebases dependencies
uv venv /home/claude/.venv
uv pip install tree-sitter-language-pack --python /home/claude/.venv/bin/python
# Generate maps
/home/claude/.venv/bin/python /mnt/skills/user/mapping-codebases/scripts/codemap.py /path/to/repo \
--skip tests,.github,node_modules,vendor
Read the root _MAP.md first for high-level orientation, then drill into
subdirectory maps. The maps are the symbol inventory — they tell you what exists
and where, so you can write source code links without reading every file.
Phase 2: Selective Source Reading
Maps reveal the API surface (exports, signatures, line numbers) without reading full files. Read source selectively to understand design rationale:
Read fully: Files with complex algorithms, business logic, configuration constants, data schemas. The maps identify these by export density and file size.
Read partially: Header comments and constant blocks in large files.
Skip: Files where the map signature tells the full story (thin wrappers, simple CRUD, format utilities).
Phase 3: Generate Anchored Sections
Create lat.md/ directory and generate markdown files. Every section must be
anchored to source code symbols — this is what makes lat check catch drift.
Section Structure Rules
- Every section MUST have a leading paragraph ≤250 characters (excluding
[[wiki link]]content). This is the section's identity in search results. lat checkvalidates this rule.
# Good Section
Brief overview anchored to [[src/auth.js#refreshToken]] and [[src/api.js#fetchWithRetry]].
More detail can follow in subsequent paragraphs.
Source Code Links (the top-down anchors)
Use [[src/path/file.ext#symbolName]] wiki links to anchor documentation to
specific symbols. Supported extensions: .ts, .tsx, .js, .jsx, .py,
.rs, .go, .c, .h.
## Token Refresh
OAuth token lifecycle managed by [[src/auth.js#getValidToken]] with automatic
refresh via [[src/auth.js#refreshToken]]. The refresh window
([[src/auth.js#REFRESH_THRESHOLD_MS]]) triggers proactive renewal before expiry.
Symbol granularity matters. Link to the specific function, class, constant,
or method — not just the file. [[src/auth.js#refreshToken]] is useful;
[[src/auth.js]] tells you nothing that the filename didn't already say.
For class methods: [[src/server.ts#App#listen]]. For Rust impl methods:
[[src/lib.rs#Greeter#greet]]. For Python: [[lib/utils.py#parse_args]].
Section-to-Section Links
Use [[file#Section#Subsection]] or short form [[file#Section]] when the
file stem is unique:
The sync pipeline ([[data#Sync Pipeline]]) uses the same token refresh
mechanism described in [[auth#Token Refresh]].
Conceptual Grouping
Organize by domain concept, not file structure. A data.md file might reference
db.js, sync.js, and demo.js because they're all part of the data layer.
The _MAP.md files already provide file-level structure; lat.md/ adds the
semantic layer explaining WHY things connect.
Index File
lat.md/lat.md must contain a bullet list of all files with one-sentence
descriptions using wiki links. lat check --index validates completeness:
- [[architecture]] — System design, OAuth flow, routing, signals
- [[data]] — IndexedDB schema, sync pipeline, demo mode
- [[awards]] — Award computation engine, data quality rules
Subdirectories need their own index: lat.md/api/api.md.
Phase 4: Add Back-Links in Source Code
Add // @lat: or # @lat: comments in source code pointing back to lat.md/
sections. This is not optional — back-links are what make lat check
detect when source code changes break documentation.
Run the back-link helper to identify where annotations are needed:
python3 SKILL_DIR/scripts/suggest_backlinks.py /path/to/repo
This parses all [[src/...]] wiki links from lat.md/ files, looks up
referenced symbols in _MAP.md files for O(1) line number resolution, and
suggests @lat: comment placements. Requires _MAP.md files from Phase 1.
Comment syntax by language:
- JS/TS/Rust/Go/C:
// @lat: [[section#Subsection]] - Python:
# @lat: [[section#Subsection]]
Place one @lat: comment per section reference, at the relevant code location —
not at the top of the file:
// @lat: [[auth#Token Refresh]]
async function refreshToken(token) { ... }
To auto-apply suggestions (review the output first):
python3 SKILL_DIR/scripts/suggest_backlinks.py /path/to/repo --apply
Phase 4b: Annotate Maps with Lattice Cross-References
After backlinks exist in source, annotate _MAP.md files so someone browsing
a code map can find the lat.md section that explains WHY a module is designed
the way it is:
python3 SKILL_DIR/scripts/annotate_maps.py /path/to/repo
This scans @lat: comments in source and adds > Documented in: lines to
_MAP.md file headers. Idempotent — safe to re-run after regenerating maps.
Example output in _MAP.md:
### auth.js
> Documented in: [[auth#Token Refresh]], [[auth#Server]]
> Imports: `express`
- **refreshToken** (f) `(token)` :15
require-code-mention for Critical Sections
For sections where bidirectional traceability is essential (test specs, invariants, key business rules), add frontmatter:
---
lat:
require-code-mention: true
---
This makes lat check fail if ANY leaf section in the file lacks a
corresponding @lat: comment in the codebase. Use for test spec files where
every test must trace to its specification.
Phase 5: Validate
cd /path/to/repo
lat check
This runs ALL checks:
- md — every
[[wiki link]]inlat.md/resolves to a real section or source symbol - code-refs — every
@lat:comment in source points to a real section; and every leaf section inrequire-code-mentionfiles is referenced by code - sections — every section has a leading paragraph ≤250 chars
- index — every directory in
lat.md/has a complete index file
All four must pass. Fix errors iteratively until lat check is clean.
Phase 6: Agent Integration
Set up files that make coding agents maintain the lattice automatically.
Cache exclusion — create lat.md/.gitignore:
.cache/
Agent instructions — append to CLAUDE.md (or AGENTS.md) using markers:
%% lat:begin %%
# Before starting work
- Run `lat search` to find sections relevant to your task.
- Run `lat expand` on user prompts to expand any `[[refs]]`.
# Post-task checklist (REQUIRED — do not skip)
After EVERY task, before responding to the user:
- [ ] Update `lat.md/` if you changed functionality, architecture, or behavior
- [ ] Run `lat check` — all wiki links and code refs must pass
%% lat:end %%
For full agent integration (hooks that auto-inject search results and block
completion when lat check fails), run lat init interactively. This sets up
agent hooks in .claude/settings.json, .cursor/hooks.json, etc. The hooks
require absolute paths to the lat binary, which is machine-local.
Drift Prevention: How It Works
The lattice stays in sync because changes to either side break lat check:
| What changed | What breaks | How lat check catches it |
|---|---|---|
| Symbol renamed in source | [[src/file#oldName]] wiki links in lat.md/ |
lat check --md reports broken source ref |
| Symbol deleted | Same as above | Same — dead source link |
| Section renamed in lat.md/ | @lat: [[old#Section]] comments in source |
lat check --code-refs reports dangling ref |
| Section deleted | Same as above | Same — orphaned code ref |
| New code added without docs | No back-link for new functions | Manual review (or require-code-mention enforcement) |
| New docs without code anchors | Sections with no [[src/...]] links |
Manual review — but this is the failure to prevent |
The critical gap: new code without docs and new docs without anchors are
NOT caught automatically unless require-code-mention is set. The agent
integration hooks (Phase 6) address this by reminding agents to update lat.md/
after every task and running lat check before completion.
Quality Criteria
A good generated lattice:
- Passes
lat checkon all four checks — md, code-refs, sections, index - Has dense source code links — most sections reference specific symbols
via
[[src/...#symbol]], not just file-level links - Has back-links — source code has
@lat:comments pointing to the sections that describe them - Captures WHY, not just WHAT — design rationale, invariants, constraints
- Groups by concept — not a 1:1 mirror of the file tree
- Concise leading paragraphs — ≤250 chars, the section's identity in search
Anti-patterns (what our v0.1 got wrong):
- Sections with only section-to-section links (
[[clusters#Visual Pipeline]]) and no source anchors —lat checkcannot catch code changes - Architectural essays that describe the codebase without linking to it — a static document, not a knowledge graph
- Treating back-links as optional — without
@lat:comments, the bottom-up view doesn't exist and half the drift detection is missing
Token Budget
The maps-first approach significantly reduces LLM token cost:
- Mapping-codebases (Phase 1): zero LLM tokens — pure AST extraction
- Selective reading (Phase 2): ~30-50% of source bytes vs reading everything
- Generation (Phase 3): the actual LLM work — proportional to conceptual complexity, not codebase size
- Back-links (Phase 4): zero LLM tokens — the suggest_backlinks.py script is deterministic
- Validation (Phase 5): zero LLM tokens — deterministic
lat check
More from oaustegard/claude-skills
developing-preact
Specialized Preact development skill for standards-based web applications with native-first architecture and minimal dependency footprint. Use when building Preact projects, particularly those involving data visualization, interactive applications, single-page apps with HTM syntax, Web Components integration, CSV/JSON data parsing, WebGL shader visualizations, or zero-build solutions with vendored ESM imports.
107reviewing-ai-papers
Analyze AI/ML technical content (papers, articles, blog posts) and extract actionable insights filtered through enterprise AI engineering lens. Use when user provides URL/document for AI/ML content analysis, asks to "review this paper", or mentions technical content in domains like RAG, embeddings, fine-tuning, prompt engineering, LLM deployment.
81exploring-codebases
>-
65mapping-codebases
Generate navigable code maps for unfamiliar codebases. Extracts exports/imports via AST (tree-sitter) to create _MAP.md files per directory showing classes, functions, methods with signatures and line numbers. Use when exploring repositories, understanding project structure, analyzing unfamiliar code, or before modifications. Triggers on "map this codebase", "explore repo", "understand structure", "what does this project contain", or when starting work on an unfamiliar repository.
51accessing-github-repos
GitHub repository access in containerized environments using REST API and credential detection. Use when git clone fails, or when accessing private repos/writing files via API.
45asking-questions
Guidance for asking clarifying questions when user requests are ambiguous, have multiple valid approaches, or require critical decisions. Use when implementation choices exist that could significantly affect outcomes.
43