# Workspaces and projects Generated: 2026-09-13T04:40:54.939Z Source build: local Canonical docs: https://teammately.ai/docs --- id: concepts.workspaces-projects title: Workspaces and projects summary: Learn how Teammately organizes teams, projects, product goals, and access boundaries. kind: concept product_area: object_model status: stable updated: 2026-09-07 canonical: /docs/concepts/workspaces-projects --- # Workspaces and projects ## Definition The Workspace is the organization-level container. A Project is the operating boundary for one body of correctness work: its Project Agent Brief, Coverage Facets, Cases, Policies, Rubrics, Harnesses, Agent Setup, Project Settings, and Benchmarks. ## Why it matters The distinction matters because Workspace membership and Project participation are not interchangeable. A person can belong to the organization without having access to every Project, and a role label must not be treated as proof of a specific permission. ## Where it appears in the product Project Settings exposes General configuration, Regime, Input Schema, and Project Members. Organization-level administration belongs to the Admin Console. Benchmark work remains nested inside the selected Project and reuses that Project's governed objects. ## Artifacts it affects The boundary affects navigation, identifiers, membership, permissions, Project Agent Brief generations, Cases, governed standards, Harnesses, Benchmarks, Runs, and Contributions. Moving or copying artifacts between Projects is not implied by shared Workspace membership. ## Boundary check When a user cannot reach an object, confirm the Workspace, Project ID, Project membership, and object-specific assignment separately. When an artifact appears reusable across Projects, verify its source context, owner, and correctness boundary before recreating it. Shared organizational membership is never evidence that two Projects use the same Cases, standards, or Benchmark Versions. {% example-demo title="Same policy shape, different projects" %} One Workspace contains a billing-assistant Project and a security-assistant Project. The teams may use similar Rubric-writing practices, but their Project Agent Briefs, Cases, Policies, Harnesses, reviewers, and Benchmark evidence remain project-scoped. A user who can administer the billing Project is not assumed to have the same access in the security Project. {% /example-demo %} ## Related workflows {% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %} - [Configure Project settings](/docs/project-settings) - [Manage Project Members](/docs/project-settings/project-members) - [Understand organization administration](/docs/admin-console) - [Troubleshoot permissions](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [IDs and keys](/docs/reference/ids) - [Permissions](/docs/reference/permissions) - [Workspaces, Projects, and target systems](/docs/object-model/workspaces-projects-and-target-systems) - [Project Context](/docs/agent-setup/project-context) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: Workspace and Project types establish the container boundary; Project Settings, Members, and Permissions expose the current project-scoped configuration and access surfaces. Organization-level behavior is intentionally left to the separately bounded Admin Console documentation. --- id: product-loop title: The Teammately correctness loop summary: See how coverage, elicitation, case construction, evaluation, and improvement reinforce one another. kind: concept product_area: introduction status: stable updated: 2026-08-22 canonical: /docs/product-loop --- # The Teammately correctness loop The correctness loop is how a team repeatedly turns domain knowledge into stronger AI behavior. It follows the five public capabilities while preserving a trace from every result back to the project context, expert contribution, case, policy, rubric, benchmark version, Harness version, and evaluation setting that made the result meaningful. ## Definition 1. **Design coverage.** Establish Dimensions, Project Topics, and Case Construction Patterns, then decide which combinations the benchmark must represent. 2. **Elicit correctness.** Use focused expert contributions to resolve policies, exceptions, applicability, disagreements, and binary rubric language. 3. **Construct the challenge set.** Create or import canonical cases, attach required materials, generate difficult variants, and curate benchmark dataset membership. 4. **Evaluate behavior.** Run an exact saved Harness Version against an exact Benchmark Version and inspect responses, Case-level Rubric evidence, comparisons, and rankings. 5. **Improve from evidence.** Start an Improvement Session with a bounded Goal Contract, explore candidates, evaluate them through the canonical path, and retain a current frontier. 6. **Return new learning.** Update coverage, correctness, cases, or the candidate according to what the evidence actually showed. ## Decision checkpoint | Evidence says... | Responsible part of the loop | Change first | | --- | --- | --- | | Important behavior has no cases | Coverage Engineering or Weave | Coverage facet, construction pattern, or case set | | Experts cannot apply the standard consistently | Correctness Elicitation | Policy scope, applicability, or rubric wording | | A case cannot be interpreted or executed reliably | Weave and Project Input Schema | Input shape, case material, or world boundary | | One saved candidate fails applicable rubrics | Trialground | Harness candidate or its runtime configuration | | Several candidate branches improve different slices | Coevolve | Goal constraints, next experiment, or retained frontier | | Result movement cannot be explained | Benchmark version and evaluation boundary | Versions, settings, mapping, or run metadata before any product change | ## How expert effort compounds The loop should ask an expert only after agents have prepared the relevant structure and evidence. A Contribution can include selected Cases, source attachments, scoped statements, draft Policies, Rubric questions, or coverage uncertainty. Completed expert work can materialize as an attributable contributed Policy, Rubric, Case, or coverage observation through the owning workflow. That same judgment can guide future case construction, determine which rubrics apply during evaluation, and identify missing correctness during improvement. Reuse across the loop is more valuable than maximizing the number of disconnected review actions. ## How product scope changes through the loop Project foundations are reusable. Project Context, Reference Materials, policies, rubrics, Coverage Facets, Cases, and Harnesses do not belong to only one benchmark. A benchmark workspace selects and versions the relevant subset, manages coverage, coordinates contributions, evaluates candidates, and records improvement. This scope distinction prevents accidental drift. Editing a project-level policy may affect several benchmarks. Changing dataset membership should create a new benchmark evidence boundary. Saving a Harness draft is different from selecting an exact saved Harness version for a Run. ## Before and after | Before | Loop work | After | | --- | --- | --- | | Domain knowledge is distributed across people and files | Agent Setup and Correctness Elicitation organize it | Project context and governed correctness artifacts are inspectable | | Examples are convenient rather than deliberate | Coverage Engineering and Weave shape the challenge set | Dataset representation and missing coverage are explicit | | Candidate behavior is discussed from anecdotes | Trialground runs a versioned evaluation | Case-level rubric evidence and comparisons are available | | Improvement is a sequence of untracked edits | Coevolve starts from pinned evidence | Candidate branches, receipts, chronology, and current frontier remain connected | {% example-demo title="Changing a retrieval harness" %} An evaluation shows failures only when current and superseded documents appear together. The team first confirms that the coverage slice and grounding rubric are valid. An Improvement Session pins those cases and the failing Harness version, then tests source-date filtering and citation-selection candidates. A stronger candidate becomes part of the current frontier only after a canonical evaluation produces the expected rubric evidence. If the work uncovers an unseen source-conflict pattern, that observation returns to Coverage Management. {% /example-demo %} ## Related workflows {% related-card-grid title="Related workflows" %} - [Product quickstart](/docs/quickstart) - [Run a benchmark evaluation](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-evaluation) - [Start an Improvement Session](/docs/improve/start-improvement-session) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [Product map](/docs/getting-oriented/product-map) - [Project Input Schema](/docs/project-settings/input-schema) - [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Doctrine-backed: this page explains the approved operating loop. Linked product pages are the authority for exact controls and lifecycle states. --- id: reference.ids title: IDs and keys summary: Understand the identifiers used across Teammately projects, records, benchmarks, runs, policies, and rubrics. kind: reference product_area: reference status: stable updated: 2026-09-07 canonical: /docs/reference/ids --- # IDs and keys ## Definition IDs and keys identify Teammately objects across projects, records, cases, benchmarks, runs, policies, rubrics, and administration surfaces. They matter because review context and benchmark evidence are only reproducible when the referenced objects are unambiguous. Use this reference when a note, run, comparison, or troubleshooting path depends on matching the same project, case, standard, benchmark version, or candidate boundary. ## Fields, states, or lifecycle rules - IDs should preserve which object a page, result, or review note is talking about. - Keys and identifiers may appear in URLs, metadata, manifests, admin surfaces, or internal source refs. - A stable ID does not imply that a public API, export format, or integration contract exists. - Review notes should name object boundaries, not only human-readable titles, when reproducibility matters. - Do not expose secrets or infer API-key behavior beyond source-backed admin pages. ## Related objects IDs and keys should be read with [Workspaces and projects](/docs/concepts/workspaces-projects), [Assets](/docs/assets), [Run Metadata](/docs/benchmark-evaluations/run-metadata), and [Permissions](/docs/reference/permissions). {% example-demo title="IDs and keys boundary" %} Scenario: A comparison note says the candidate improved but does not identify the benchmark version or candidate run. ID boundary: The note should identify the benchmark version, run, candidate metadata, and changed artifact if those references are available. Interpretation: Without those identities, the comparison is weak evidence even if the score is visible. {% /example-demo %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: current Project, user, workspace, Benchmark, Policy, and Rubric types show distinct opaque identifiers for those product objects. The reference does not assert that every internal identifier is accepted by a customer-facing API or safe to construct. ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %} - [Workspaces and projects](/docs/concepts/workspaces-projects) - [Permissions](/docs/reference/permissions) - [Assets](/docs/assets) - [Product quickstart](/docs/quickstart) - [Task index](/docs/operating-manual/task-index) {% /related-card-grid %} --- id: reference.permissions title: Permissions summary: Understand the user-facing permission boundaries for projects, reviewers, settings, and expert UI access. kind: reference product_area: reference status: stable updated: 2026-09-07 canonical: /docs/reference/permissions --- # Permissions ## Definition Permissions describe the user-facing access boundaries that affect projects, reviewer work, settings, Expert UI access, and organization administration. Use this page to decide which access surface to inspect before diagnosing a blocked workflow. This reference does not turn role labels into a complete public permission matrix. Exact permission behavior should stay tied to source-backed pages and the admin or project surfaces that expose it. ## Fields, states, or lifecycle rules - Project access affects cases, standards, coverage, benchmark work, and project settings. - Reviewer access affects assigned expert work and reviewer-facing surfaces. - Organization administration affects members, groups, roles, security controls, API keys, and integrations. - Role labels in docs should be treated as understandable operating labels, not as exhaustive permission contracts. - Do not infer auth, security, compliance, tenant isolation, or billing guarantees from this reference. ## Related objects Permissions should be read with [Admin Console](/docs/admin-console), [Workspaces and projects](/docs/concepts/workspaces-projects), [Permissions troubleshooting](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions), and [Reviewer and project access](/docs/governance/reviewer-and-project-access). {% example-demo title="Permissions boundary" %} Symptom: A reviewer can sign in but cannot complete assigned case review. Permission boundary: The issue may be reviewer assignment, project access, Expert UI routing, or missing case context. Interpretation: Diagnose access and assignment before changing cases, standards, or benchmark evidence. {% /example-demo %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: Project, user, and workspace types plus Project Permissions and Members surfaces support the user-facing boundaries described here. They do not form an exhaustive authorization matrix; assignment, organization administration, and object approval remain separate product states. ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %} - [Admin Console](/docs/admin-console) - [Workspaces and projects](/docs/concepts/workspaces-projects) - [Permissions troubleshooting](/docs/troubleshooting/permissions) - [Expert UI](/docs/integrations/reviewer-workspace) - [Product quickstart](/docs/quickstart) {% /related-card-grid %} --- id: troubleshooting.permissions title: Permissions troubleshooting summary: Separate Project membership from Expert Contribution assignment and readiness when an expert has no tasks available. kind: error product_area: troubleshooting status: stable updated: 2026-09-07 canonical: /docs/troubleshooting/permissions --- # Permissions troubleshooting Use this when project role, reviewer assignment, or approval ownership prevents someone from completing the intended work. ## Symptom A user can access Teammately but cannot open the expected Project, or an expert reports **no tasks available** after opening their Contribution link. These symptoms belong to different owning surfaces. ## Likely causes - The user or group is not listed under **Project Settings → Project Members**. - The Contribution was requested for a different recipient. - The Contribution exists but its next Task or Checkpoint is not ready. - The current IP is blocked before Project membership is evaluated. ## Diagnostic checks - Confirm that the user or group appears in **Project Members** for the intended Project. - Open the Contribution from the sender-side Expert Contributions workspace and verify its recipient and status. - Check whether the expert has an executable Task or Checkpoint, not merely whether the Contribution exists. - If **Access Restricted** is visible, resolve the IP allowlist first. ## Fix - Add the correct user or group under **Project Settings → Project Members** when Project access is missing. - Correct the Contribution recipient through the owning Contribution workflow when the request went to the wrong person. - Resolve lifecycle or readiness problems in Expert Contributions when access succeeds but no Task can be entered. - Do not infer a permission from a role label or edit governed artifacts merely to make a control appear. ## Prevention - Separate reviewer access from approval authority in review setup. - Check assignments before launching a review session. - Use a small pilot Contribution before assigning a larger specialist cohort. - Keep project membership changes visible to review owners. ## Related task pages {% related-card-grid title="Related task pages" %} - [Request an Expert Contribution](/docs/expert-contributions/request-contribution) - [Reviewer assignments and statuses](/docs/expert-contributions) - [Using checkpoints](/docs/expert-contributions/complete-contribution) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Related reference pages {% related-card-grid title="Related reference pages" %} - [Permissions](/docs/reference/permissions) - [Roles and permissions](/docs/governance/roles-and-permissions) - [Expert Contributions](/docs/expert-contributions) {% /related-card-grid %} ## Source confidence Code-backed: Project Members and the redirected Project Permissions route define current Project access management; Contribution status and runtime navigation distinguish access from executable-task readiness. The Access Restricted route defines the separate IP boundary.