Repository navigation
docs: clarify project purpose, source features and current evidence - #82
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The homepage emphasizes scoring and a product analogy, while detailed CLI/policy material makes the first-use path hard to scan. Its Reaparr benchmark row also presents an old A 100 alongside current source behavior.
Refocus all three overviews on rule-defined instruction-change review and baseline-governed CI checks. Reduce the English homepage from 662 to 212 lines, move detailed policy/CLI/Action/SARIF material into
docs/reference.md, retain the existing demos, and keep the linked discovery/exception headings. Clearly separate published v0.24.0 from unreleased Cursor commands and show a synthetic attachment-loss case whose ordinary scores both remain 100. Point to the current corpus status: five completed scans and one expected dangling-source rejection with no Reaparr score.About copy: “Local static analysis and baseline-governed CI checks for coding-agent instructions: AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, Cursor, Copilot, and Gemini.”
Validation: 10 existing documentation/visual checks passed; 132 internal links/anchors checked; all three overviews and the reference rendered successfully through GitHub's GFM API. Built wheel + sdist and verified the wheel embeds the current English Markdown overview after newline normalization. Runtime source fingerprint is unchanged (
4e63e4d2d451d3e24bf8a8b4454185b775e2589770ddfa39a947aa5d3e48069d). No runtime, published artifact, Action-ref or frozen-evidence changes.