docs/data/README.md links to `img/README.md` for the dimensions, weights and
magic-byte rule of the three marks. scaffold.sh never copied it: DOCS did not
list it and DIRS created docs/data/img empty. Every scaffolded project therefore
started with a broken link in a required document, a doc-claims failure on its
first run, and no copy of the spec the link promises.
The omission looks like a misreading of the script's own rule. Its header says
it does not copy branding and that the template's docs/data/img is not a source
-- both true of the three .webp marks, which must not be invented because a
placeholder that looks deliberate outlives the issue that would have replaced
it. img/README.md is documentation about those files, not one of them.
Verifying that fix surfaced a second, plainer one: docs/architecture/GUARDS.md
was never scaffolded either, while being referenced by TOOLS.md,
DOC_TRUST_MAP.md and architecture/README.md twice. It is a document, not a
script, and nothing argued for leaving it out.
A scaffold now writes 19 files, and a freshly scaffolded project no longer names
a document that is not there.
This is the fourth instance here of one shape -- a document naming a path that
is not present. The others were docs/planning/FUTURE.md in the batch ledger, an
Exempt: line inside a code fence, and docs/data/logo.webp as an example of where
NOT to put an asset. The first three were wrong in the template; this one was
correct in the template and wrong in every copy of it, which is why running
doc-claims here never caught it and scaffolding into a scratch directory did.
closes#15
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The template shipped scripts to back up, deploy, check health and read the
deployed version, and no document saying where errors go, what alerts, who
receives it, or what to run first when it is down. Grep across docs/** found
zero mentions of error tracking, observability or database restore.
Five sections. Where errors go, with the distinction that matters at 3am --
healthcheck.sh answers "is it up", error tracking answers "is it working", and a
service returning 500 to everything is up. What alerts and to whom, naming a
person rather than a channel nobody owns. Backups, whose last row is the date of
the last verified restore, because a backup nobody has restored is a guess.
Rate limits and cost ceilings, *(precautionary)*. And an ordered "it is down,
what now" where every step is a command that changes nothing.
Marked *(only for a deployed service)*, with the instruction to delete rather
than keep the headings unanswered: an empty runbook reads as one nobody wrote,
which is worse than one that never applied.
scaffold.sh now lays it down (17 files, 0 skipped) and DOC_TRUST_MAP.md points
at it from both tables. Two prose counts in scaffold.sh's header said
"thirteen documents" and were already stale; they no longer carry a number,
since a count in prose beside a list in code drifts the moment the list grows --
which is what just happened.
closes#6
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The basis for every project here was itself unversioned: no .git, no remote,
no history. Changes to it had no diff and no revert, and two of its own guards
could not run at all -- doc-claims.sh and doc-triggers.py both read git
history, so the script written to catch documentation drift could not be run
against the documents that define drift.
This is the tree as it stands, including work that until now existed only as
loose files on disk: WORK_CYCLE.md, TOOLS.md, the Portainer image-line fix in
deploy.py, the status vocabulary corrected to the four words the conformance
checker actually enforces, the Exempt: mechanism documented, and the Forgejo
instance named in README.md.
secrets.sh --tracked reports one candidate, migrate.sh:480. It is the comment
documenting the three Postgres credential shapes that script redacts, with
literal placeholders, and it is left alone deliberately: GUARDS.md section 2
is that a source-grep guard must tell code from the comment about code, and
deleting an explanation to quiet a scanner is the failure it names.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
null