Merge pull request 'docs(website): record the edge branch strategy and the Module-uo repo' (#123) from docs/module-system-edge into main

Reviewed-on: #123

website/MODULE_SYSTEM.md

@@ -291,12 +291,17 @@ than by review.
 
 ### 2.3 Module packaging — one repo, one bundle
 
-`RunicGateway/module-uo`, GPL-3.0-or-later, CI shaped like the other repos. Server and client halves
+**`RunicGateway/Module-uo`** — `https://gitea.whitlocktech.com/RunicGateway/Module-uo.git`, note the
-live side by side and version together, so a route and the screen that calls it can never be
+capital `M`, matching `Android-app`'s casing rather than the lowercase directory name. The repo
-mismatched:
+exists but is **empty** as of 2026-08-10: no branches, no initial commit. Its first commit needs the
+usual scaffolding — `README.md`, `LICENSE.md` (GPL-3.0-or-later), `CONTRIBUTING.md` with the
+AI-disclosure clause, the PR template, and CI.
+
+Server and client halves live side by side and version together, so a route and the screen that
+calls it can never be mismatched:
 
 ```
-RunicGateway/module-uo
+RunicGateway/Module-uo
   module.json          id, version, coreApi range, mounts, extensions
   server/              routers, controllers, models, utils
   server/db/schema.sql fragment replayed by ensureSchema()
@@ -307,6 +312,10 @@ RunicGateway/module-uo
 
 Release artifact: `module-uo-<version>.tar.gz` plus a manifest carrying its `sha256`.
 
+The module's **id** is `uo` — that is what appears in `module.json`, in `installed_modules`, in the
+`modules/<id>/` path and in the URL segment. `Module-uo` is the repository; `module-uo` elsewhere in
+this document names the module and its artifact, not the repo.
+
 `module.json` declares a `coreApi` semver range, checked at boot against a `MODULE_API_VERSION`
 constant in core; a mismatch fails **loudly** rather than silently. This is a separate number from
 `PROTOCOL_VERSION`, which versions the shard wire and says nothing about a website module.
@@ -364,6 +373,10 @@ Phase 1 prototypes exactly this before anything is committed to it (§2.7).
 
 ### 2.7 Phases
 
+**Phase 0 — unblock CI and scaffold the repo.** Land the one-line `pr-checks.yml` trigger fix on
+`website` `main` (§2.9), cut `edge` from `main`, and give `Module-uo` its initial commit (§2.3).
+Nothing else can be trusted until the first of these is done.
+
 **Phase 1 — API contract + spike (blocking).** Merge this document. Write the contract at
 `docs/website/MODULE_API.md`. Then a throwaway spike on an unmerged branch moving
 **`/api/v1/public/atlas/*`** behind the proposed surface — the smallest honest test: five routes,
@@ -439,7 +452,37 @@ Two consequences, both accepted:
   separate Android module plan. App Links verification itself is unaffected — the manifest's intent
   filters only cover `/mobile/callback` and `auth/callback`.
 
-### 2.9 Process obligations
+### 2.9 Branch strategy — `edge`, then one cutover
+
+All website work lands on an **`edge`** branch and reaches `main` as a single cutover at the end,
+the same shape used for [protocol v3](../link/v3.md) and the Android theming workstream. Nothing
+half-extracted is ever on `main`: a core that has grown a module loader but not yet lost its UO code
+is a coherent state, and a core mid-extraction is not.
+
+`edge` does not exist on `website` today — the protocol v3 cutover landed and the branch was cleaned
+up, so it is cut fresh from `main`. `Module-uo` develops on its own `main` from its first commit;
+it has no cutover to perform, since nothing depends on it until the website cutover lands.
+
+**Phase 0, and it blocks everything: the CI trigger.** `website/.gitea/workflows/pr-checks.yml`
+declares:
+
+```yaml
+on:
+  pull_request:
+    branches: [main]
+```
+
+So a PR into `edge` runs **no checks at all** — no server tests, no client build, no bot install.
+This is the same trap that let all nine Android M12 phase PRs merge with zero CI. It matters more
+here than it did there, because Phase 2's exit criterion *is* a CI result: a zero-line
+`routes.manifest.json` diff and a passing test suite. Running the whole workstream blind and
+discovering the breakage at cutover is the expensive version of this.
+
+The fix is one line — `branches: [main, edge]` — and it must land on `website` `main` **before** the
+first module PR, not alongside it. `build-images.yml` is untouched: it triggers on push to `main`, so
+images are published and production rolls at the cutover and at no point before it, which is correct.
+
+### 2.10 Process obligations
 
 Every server-side PR runs `npm run swagger`, `npm run routes:manifest` (the diff is reviewed, not
 merely regenerated) and `npm test`, and carries a matching edit to `BACKEND_DESIGN.md`. Module
@@ -462,3 +505,5 @@ Conventional Commits, the AI-disclosure trailer, branches cut from an up-to-date
 | 8 | SPA pages namespaced: `/uo/*`, `/admin/uo/*`, `/player/uo/*` | §2.8 |
 | 9 | Clean break — no redirects, no nav-override migration; site is not public yet | §2.8 |
 | 10 | Client half loads as a prebuilt ESM chunk with React shared via a core global | §2.6 |
+| 11 | Website work lands on `edge` and reaches `main` as one cutover at the end | §2.9 |
+| 12 | The module repo is `RunicGateway/Module-uo`; the module id is `uo` | §2.3 |