Decision: Drop [[wikilinks]] permanently

See /spec for the public statement. This is the internal "why" we don't surface in marketing.

What we're not building

[[wikilinks]] syntax. No [[target]], no [[target|alias]], no autocomplete on [[, no per-page backlinks panel built off literal-text matches. None of it.

The argument from the Obsidian side

"You can't be a wiki without wikilinks. Every wiki shape since Ward Cunningham has had them." True. We're not building a wiki shape. We're building a hub shape, which is wiki-adjacent but doesn't require the same syntax bet.

Three reasons I went the other way

1. The links should come from the AI, not the markup. mdfy already maintains a concept_index and concept_relations graph that's automatically populated by the AI capture passes. The graph is more interesting than what a user remembers to write inside [[ ]]. Putting both up would be redundant and the manual one would always lose.
2. Wikilinks are a friction tax on AI agents. When Claude or Cursor reads a markdown doc with [[]] syntax, it can't follow the link without the wiki-context ([[]] is not standard markdown; the resolution is hub-specific). Plain inline links ([label](https://mdfy.app/d/abc123)) work everywhere.
3. It would freeze us into a wiki-product mental model. Once users have [[]] reflexes, every UI decision down the line gets compared to Obsidian. That's the wrong reference for cross-AI memory.

What we ship instead

• Auto-generated "Related in this hub" panel under every doc, computed from the concept overlap with sibling docs.
• Concept index page at /hub/{slug}/concepts, browsable.
• Linting for hubs (orphans, likely-duplicates, title mismatches).

What I expect to hear

"Power users will hate this." Yes — the subset of power users who already think in [[]]. I'm willing to lose them. The mass market is everyone who's never used Obsidian, and for them the AI-derived link is strictly better than the markup they'd have to learn.