Examples

Five worked cases, each shipped as a study directory in studies/ — artifacts, grounding ledger, and (where a run exists) the trajectory and report. They are chosen to cover the different shapes a study can take, not just different topics: a wrapped legacy simulator, an external forecasting pipeline, a from-scratch hybrid port, an external MARL training job, and a benchmark shell.

case	path taken	what it demonstrates	results?
Chicago Schelling	C — wrapped legacy	census-grounded P, a scheduled intervention plus audience-scoped broadcasts, and a falsified hypothesis faithfully recorded	yes — 4 metric rows, 570 households
Consumer Confidence	C — wrapped legacy	a longitudinal axis made of information accrual (as_of cutoffs), and an LLM core with Bayesian expansion to the rest of the pool	yes — 3 forecast steps, 12 personas
HiSim ROE	B — from scratch	a hybrid population: 8 LLM agents and 12 rule agents in one panel, one environment, one metric set	yes — 5 metric rows, 20 agents
Drug Procurement	external MARL pipeline	the run_note mechanism — a study fully materialized here whose training runs elsewhere and imports back	no — setup-only report, 0 training episodes
ABM Sugarscape	umbrella shell over a sibling benchmark	does an LLM f reproduce a rule f, with exact parity against the original implementation as the test	no — structure only; re-run required

The two "no" rows are not gaps to apologize for. Drug Procurement is the pattern for a study whose run belongs to a heavy external job, and it carries the honest artifact of that: a setup report that says 0 episodes. Sugarscape is a benchmark shell whose entire content is delegation plus a parity test.

What every case page contains

The pages share one shape, so the gallery doubles as a pattern library:

• the research question and what the case is a pattern for;
• P / E / B — the population, the environment layers with their modality / scope / dynamics, and what the behaviour function actually emits;
• what one step means and the horizon — which differs sharply across cases (a relocation round, an information cutoff, a platform turn, a training episode);
• results — the real trajectory table with interpretation, or an explicit statement that the study ships as structure only;
• grounding — what is sourced vs proxy vs assumed, concretely;
• what you can fork — the study's adjustable_params, each framed as "change this to ask that question".

The catalog is the real index

Once you have the repository, the up-to-date list of available studies is the catalog itself — every studies/*/study.yaml with its discovery fields (domain, tags, demonstrates, adjustable_params, reference, and each reference study's teaches line, which says what pattern it exemplifies). sv-init routes new questions against those fields automatically: a match becomes a fork (Path A) rather than a rebuild, and reference: true studies are templates that are never edited in place.

There are more studies in the catalog than there are pages here — the eleven abm_* benchmark shells alone, of which Sugarscape is the worked example. The shipped from-scratch template (studies/opinion_diffusion/) is also fully functional and documented in Build a Study from Scratch.

Start from Anatomy of a Study to read any of these directories, and Quickstart to route your own question into one.