wtclaude
cffd525bdf
Phase 5 slice 0 (MODULE_SYSTEM.md §2.11.1). The repo's governance, the front page, the book's outline, and the CI that keeps the whole thing from rotting. README.md What the reader is building, all three parts, and the draft banner: the kit is finished when someone outside this project builds a working module by following it alone, and that has not happened. Says the sidecar rule plainly (MODULE_API.md §2.7) rather than leaving it to chapter 3, because a reader who skims the front page and starts coding should still get that one right. book/README.md The outline of four chapters, landed before the prose so the shape can be argued with. Chapters are named but NOT linked — a link to a file that does not exist is what the link check is for, and an outline should not be the first thing to fail it. CONTRIBUTING.md The rule that governs every change here: the kit never re-specifies a contract. Also the prose conventions, and why the pinned ref points at core's `edge` rather than `main`. SECURITY.md Scoped for a repo that runs nothing: the two things that ARE reportable are a template that teaches an insecure pattern (it is meant to be copied) and a chapter that teaches something dangerous. scripts/checkLinks.js Relative links resolve; anchors match a real heading; no link pins a reader to a commit snapshot of a moving document. Nothing is fetched — a self-hosted Gitea would fail on a credential-less runner and teach us to ignore red. Fences and code spans are stripped by a line walk, not a regexp. Its first run found a real one: a PR template's relative links resolve from the REPO ROOT, because that is where their text ends up when Gitea inlines them into a pull request body. Encoded, with the reason. scripts/checkCoreApi.js The anti-rot check. Asserts template/module.json's `coreApi` EQUALS the pinned core's MODULE_API_VERSION — equality, not "satisfies", because a range check stays green across a contract bump and green would then mean "the template still loads" instead of "someone has re-read the book". Both failure branches and the pass were exercised against a real core checkout. ci/core-ref.json The pin, same convention as Module-uo's. Points at `edge`: core's `main` has no server/src/modules/ until the cutover, and that pin is one of the things the cutover has to revisit. .gitea/workflows/pr-checks.yml Two jobs. `links` always runs; `template` is conditional on template/module.json existing, so the repo is gated now and the job arms itself when slice 1 lands, with no edit to the workflow. Same guard Module-uo used through its planning phase. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
34 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
34 lines
1.1 KiB
Markdown
<!--
|
|
Thanks for contributing to Runic Gateway!
|
|
Please fill out the sections below and check every box before requesting review.
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
## What & why
|
|
|
|
<!-- What does this PR change, and why? Link any related issue: "Closes #123". -->
|
|
|
|
## How it was tested
|
|
|
|
<!-- Commands you ran, manual steps, screenshots. -->
|
|
|
|
## Checklist
|
|
|
|
- [ ] I have read [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md).
|
|
- [ ] The change builds and existing tests/checks pass locally.
|
|
- [ ] I have added or updated tests/docs where it makes sense.
|
|
- [ ] My commits are reasonably scoped with clear messages.
|
|
|
|
## AI-assisted contributions (required)
|
|
|
|
This project **requires disclosure of AI tool usage**. Please pick one:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] No AI tools were used to produce this contribution.
|
|
- [ ] AI tools were used. Tool(s): `___________`. I have reviewed and understand
|
|
every change, and take responsibility for it. AI-authored commits are
|
|
marked with a `Co-Authored-By` / `Assisted-By` trailer.
|
|
|
|
## License
|
|
|
|
- [ ] I agree that my contribution is licensed under this project's license
|
|
(**GNU GPL v3.0 or later**), and I have the right to contribute it.
|