I've been thinking this too. I frequently do deep research on some systems programming technique, ask it to generate a .md for it, and then I use that in later sessions with Claude Code "look at the research I collected in {*-research}.md and help me explore ways to apply it to {thing}".

At the research step it frequently (always?) uses memory to direct/scope the research to what I typically work on, but I think that kind of pigeon holes the model and what it explores. And the memory doesn't quite capture all the areas I'm interested in, or want to directly apply the research to.

And regarding the crap in memories, I found the same. Mine at work mentioned I'm an expert at a business domain I have almost zero experience with.

I feel like the companies building this stuff accept a lot of "slop" in their approach, and just can't see past building things by slopping stuff into prompts. I wish they'd explore more rigid approaches. Yes, I understand "the bitter lesson" but it seems obvious to me some traditional approaches would yield better results for the foreseeable future. Less magic (which is just running things through the cheapest model they have and dumping it in every chat). It seems like poison.

Related: https://vercel.com/blog/agents-md-outperforms-skills-in-our-...

Also, agent skills are usually pure slop. If you look through https://skills.sh on a framework/topic you're knowledgeable in you'll be a bit disheartened. This stuff was pioneered by people who move fast, but I think it's now time to try and push for quality and care in the approach since these have gotten good enough to contribute to more than prototype work.