Using branches for this is possible, but extremely awkward to use. I recommend using branches only for different stages of development, e.g. as suggested by the git-flow model.

When can branches get awkward? Always then when two branches represent different resources (not just different versions of the same resource), so that you might want to view both resources at the same time. As you can only have one branch checked out in your working directory, you’ll either end up switching back and forth between branches, or cloning the repo into a second directory to have another branch checked out there – starting another repo just for the second resource would have been much easier.

Instead, just create an examples/ directory. It’s the simplest, most intuitive solution to your problem.

I also notice that your repo is using the GitHub Pages feature, where your repo is accessible as a website (here https://benwatkinsart.github.io/Designemplate/). It would make sense to make your examples accessible via this website, and simply add a link from each example to the corresponding source on GitHub. The Pages features only displays items on the gh-pages branch, not from any other branches.

No use directories for different content.

Use branches for content that is changing or being changed over time rather than using it to segregate types types of content.

Another option (if you don’t want all those files in your base source control repository)… is to create a separate repository and then include that in the other one. For example in rails you would make a gem, publish it and then refer to it in the Gemfile as a dependency. You don’t mention rails so your exact process may vary.

Another option is to have a top level directory for the project, to have directories for the templates and also a code directory, within which the .git repo resides.