chemenu/instructions/private-instance.md

---
type: types/instruction.md
name: private-instance
description: Set up a private working instance as a clone of a public upstream, so stack updates arrive by merge instead of by copying a tarball over the tree.
---

# Set up a private instance against a public upstream

The distribution path in [setup-instance.md](setup-instance.md) builds an instance from a
`dist export` tarball, with no git ancestry in common with the repo it came from. That is the
right shape for someone who only ever *consumes* the stack.

This is the other shape: a private instance that keeps taking stack changes from a public
upstream, and whose own content must never travel back. It costs one safeguard to set up and
saves the whole update procedure afterwards.

**Read this before, not after, the first `publish`.** The gate in step 4 is the thing that makes
the arrangement safe, and adding it later means the window it closes was open in between.

## Why a clone rather than a tarball

`INSTALL.md`'s "Eine Instanz aktualisieren" is `cp -r` as an upgrade strategy: copy `tools/`,
`types/`, `instructions/`, `AGENTS.md`, `VERSION` over the existing tree. It has no three-way
merge, so it cannot notice that the receiving instance changed a file, and it has no conflict
surface, so nobody learns when upstream and local both touched the same one. It overwrites
silently.

A clone gets all of that from git. Stack changes land as real merges, with real conflicts where
they conflict.

**What a plain `git merge` does *not* give you is protection from the upstream's content.** The
private `main` deletes the demo corpus once, but that deletion does not make later upstream
changes to those paths go away. Measured, not assumed:

| Upstream does | `git merge upstream/main` does |
|---|---|
| modifies a page you deleted | `CONFLICT (modify/delete)` - and **leaves the upstream version in your working tree**. Resolve it with `git add -A` and the demo page is back. |
| adds a new page | stages it **silently**. No conflict, no prompt, no mention. |
| deletes a page you also deleted | nothing. The only harmless case. |

The middle row is the one that matters, because nothing announces it. An upstream that ships a
demo corpus *and* uses it as a test bed will add pages, and each one arrives in your instance
and starts showing up in your `lint`, your `index`, your `search` and your `confidence decay`.

So the merge has to be scoped. That is the procedure below, and it is not optional.

## Steps

1. **Clone, and name the two remotes for what they are.**

   ```bash
   git clone <private-repo-url> my-wiki
   cd my-wiki
   git remote add upstream <public-repo-url>
   ```

   `origin` is yours and is the only thing you ever push to. `upstream` is where stack updates
   come from and is fetch-only.

2. **Make the fetch-only half fetch-only in git, too.**

   ```bash
   git remote set-url --push upstream no_push
   ```

   git refuses to push to a URL it cannot resolve. This is a convenience, not the safeguard -
   step 4 is the safeguard.

3. **Delete the upstream's demo corpus once, on your own `main`.**

   Everything under `kb/` and `raw/` that came with the clone is the upstream's content, not
   yours. Remove it with `wikitool rm --page` (never `rm -rf`: `rm` de-links each page from the
   rest of the wiki, and a plain delete leaves dead wikilinks and broken citations behind), then
   `index rebuild`, `sources rebuild-index`, `lint`.

   This is a one-time cut. Afterwards the upstream corpus is frozen from your side, which is
   what makes later merges content-free.

4. **Arm the Publish-Remote Gate — before the first `publish`.**

   ```bash
   cat > .wikitool-remotes.json <<'EOF'
   { "schema": 1, "allowed_push_urls": ["<your-private-push-url>"] }
   EOF
   ```

   Use the URL `git remote get-url --push origin` prints, exactly. `publish` refuses with exit
   42 for anything else, and there is no flag that opens it - see [gates.md](gates.md).

   The file is gitignored, so it stays with this checkout and never travels to the upstream.
   `wikitool doctor` reports whether the gate is armed, and WARNs at more than one remote
   without it.

5. **Take away the write credential, if you can.** A token or deploy key for `origin` only,
   with no write access to the upstream, is the one control that holds even if everything above
   is misconfigured. Belt and braces.

6. **Personalize and bootstrap.** `USER.md`, `SOUL.md` and optionally `ENVIRONMENT.md` are
   yours and unrelated to the upstream's - see the Personalization step of
   [setup-instance.md](setup-instance.md), then [bootstrap.md](bootstrap.md) for the venv and
   the skills.

   A clone inherits the upstream's `kb/CONVENTIONS.md` and `kb/*/COLLECTION.md` rather than
   templates, because it inherits the upstream's whole tree. They are yours from this point on:
   rewrite them if this instance writes its pages differently - the update procedure below
   restores them on every merge, so the change sticks. [kb-profiles.md](kb-profiles.md) has the
   alternatives.

## Taking a stack update

Take the machinery, never the content. The merge is held open, the content stages are forced
back to your own state, and only then does it close.

**Three files under those stages are machinery, not content**, and forcing them back is how an
upstream contract change gets silently discarded:

| Path | Why it must take the upstream side |
|---|---|
| `kb/CONTRACT.md` | The stack's own knowledge-layer contract. Every rule in it is enforced by `wikitool`; an instance never edits it |
| `kb/CONVENTIONS.md.template` | The template your `kb/CONVENTIONS.md` was filled from. The filled file is yours; the template is the stack's |
| `raw/CONTRACT.md` | The raw stage's contract, for the same reason as the first row |

Everything else under `kb/` and `raw/` is yours, `kb/CONVENTIONS.md` and each
`kb/<name>/COLLECTION.md` included - they bind your corpus, and they are exactly what the
restore below is protecting.

```bash
BEFORE=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
git fetch upstream

# --no-commit holds the merge open; it may report conflicts under kb/ or raw/,
# which the next four lines are about to make irrelevant.
git merge --no-commit --no-ff upstream/main || true

# Whatever the merge did to the content stages, undo it. HEAD is still your
# pre-merge commit while the merge is open, so this restores exactly your side.
git rm -rq --cached --ignore-unmatch kb raw
rm -rf kb raw
git checkout HEAD -- kb raw

# ...then take the upstream side back for the machinery that lives among it.
# MERGE_HEAD is still resolvable while the merge is open.
git checkout MERGE_HEAD -- kb/CONTRACT.md kb/CONVENTIONS.md.template raw/CONTRACT.md

git commit --no-edit
```

Then **check that it worked**, rather than trusting that it did. The same three paths are
excluded here, spelled out rather than held in a variable so that the check can be read on its
own and copied on its own:

```bash
git diff --name-only "$BEFORE" HEAD -- kb raw \
  | grep -vE '^(kb/CONTRACT\.md|kb/CONVENTIONS\.md\.template|raw/CONTRACT\.md)$'
```

Must print nothing.

An empty result is the proof that the update touched machinery only. A non-empty one means a
path slipped through - inspect it before going further.

**The exclusion is not cosmetic.** Without it the check reports *empty* for an update that just
ate a `kb/CONTRACT.md` change - it would be confirming the failure it exists to catch. If one of
the three paths does not appear in the diff at all, that is fine: it means upstream did not
touch it.

Then, as after any stack change: `doctor`, `docs verify`, `instructions verify`, `migrate status`,
`lint`. A `migrate status` with outstanding links means the update crossed a compatibility
boundary - follow [migrate-corpus.md](migrate-corpus.md) before doing anything else.

**Why not just `git merge upstream/main`?** Because of the table above: a page the upstream
*adds* arrives with no conflict and no message. You would find out when `lint` starts reporting
pages you never wrote - if you noticed at all.

## Where stack development happens

**In the public repo, not here.** That is not a preference; the stack is built that way. The
development-only half of the instruction layer is pruned from a distribution one-way, with no
command that reconstructs it, so an instance built this way has no tool-development mode to
switch into in the first place.

When a tool bug blocks real content work here - and it will - file the issue against the public
repo (an MCP server or the web UI reaches it from any session; no shared history needed), fix it
there where the tests, `docs verify` and CI's version gate live, and take the fix back with the
merge above. Nothing is lost by the detour: the fix has to pass that CI either way.

## Decision points

- **Merge conflict in `kb/` or `raw/`?** Expected, and already handled: the update procedure
  above overwrites those stages with your own afterwards, so the conflict resolves itself.
  Never resolve one by hand with `git add -A` - that is exactly how the upstream version, which
  git left sitting in your working tree, gets committed into your instance.
- **`git diff` after the merge shows something under `kb/` or `raw/`?** Stop - unless it is one
  of the three machinery paths the check excludes, which is the update working as intended. For
  anything else the scoping step did not take: do not publish; find out which path came through
  and where from.
- **Conflict in `tools/`, `types/` or `instructions/`?** You changed the stack locally, which
  step "Where stack development happens" says not to do. Take the upstream side and re-file the
  change as an issue there.
- **...but you changed how *your pages* are written?** That is not a stack change and the rule
  above does not apply to it. Language, section headings, naming forms, tone, relationship
  labels and the confidence rubric live in `kb/CONVENTIONS.md`, and each collection's authoring
  rules in `kb/<name>/COLLECTION.md` - all under `kb/`, all yours, all restored by the merge
  procedure rather than overwritten by it. If you find yourself editing `tools/` or `types/` to
  change an authoring convention, that is a stack bug: file it, because the split exists
  precisely so you do not have to.

## Scope

Not for a first instance with no upstream - that is [setup-instance.md](setup-instance.md). Not
for a fresh clone of a repo you already own and develop in - that is
[bootstrap.md](bootstrap.md). This is specifically the two-remote case, where the cost of a
mistaken push is disclosure rather than inconvenience.