GitHub’s workflow, translated into research
Repository, branch, commit, diff, pull request, review, merge, issues, history, and actions, mapped onto one shared MoyoMap investigation.
If your team already knows how a repository works, a MoyoMap investigation uses the same moves. The objects are claims, evidence, and conclusions. The Teams page walks one example from the first sources to an accepted finding.
| GitHub | In the investigation | On a MoyoMap |
|---|---|---|
| Repository | Research project or investigation | The shared map |
| Branch | Alternative hypothesis or line of investigation | A fork, including a branch taken from one claim |
| Commit | Recorded change to claims, evidence, or conclusions | An edit, a review label, or an accepted merge that advances the map’s revision |
| Diff | What changed between two research states | The claims a merge request would add or change |
| Pull request | Proposal to incorporate new findings | A contribution sent as a merge request |
| Code review | Evidence and claim review | A person accepts or rejects the proposed claims |
| Merge | Incorporate accepted findings into the shared investigation | Accepted claims land on the shared map |
| Issues | Questions and unresolved research tasks | Claims marked to investigate, and discussion that is still open |
| Git history | Record of how the team’s knowledge evolved | The map’s revision, plus forks that were not merged |
| GitHub Actions | Models that write sourced claims | A scan adds claims and citations, and each claim records which model wrote it |
One investigation
This is an example, so the names are fixed. The investigation is Northwind’s yield. Lena leads it. Omar covers markets. Priya reviews evidence. ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini each write sourced claims on the map. They do not label it. A person does.
- Repository. Lena opens the map. ChatGPT records “Commercial yield is 18%” and cites the investor deck and the press release.
- Branch. Omar forks from that claim: the figure counts pilot cells, not the production line. Claude writes that claim and cites an SEC filing. The shared map stays as it was.
- Pull request. Omar proposes a merge: mark the yield claim known incorrect, and the pilot-cell claim known correct. In the workspace that proposal is a merge request.
- Review, then merge. Priya reads the filing and accepts the request. Those labels are now the team’s call on the shared map.
- History. The earlier revision remains, and so does the fork. “What is the production-line yield?” stays on the map, marked to investigate.
What the workspace calls each move
- The investigation is a map of claims, citations, and review labels.
- A competing line is a fork. A branch fork starts from one claim and the claims under it.
- New claims from a person or an agent sit on a contribution until someone sends a merge request.
- Map owners review that request and accept or reject claims. Accepted claims update the shared map.
- Open questions stay on the map as claims marked to investigate. There is no separate issue tracker.
- An agent investigates or verifies through a scan or the contribution API, then a person decides what is incorporated. See the contribution API.
Who can read the map is a separate choice: public, private, and team. Company pricing for the shared workspace is on Teams.