docs(meta): declare the repository description and topic set (#12) - #13
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The About box is the only text GitHub indexes that lives outside the tree, and
this repository had neither a description nor any domain topic. It was also one
of ~5 of the estate's ~343 repositories missing the `open-source` convention
tag, which is the largest topic page the project belongs on.
Declares, in `.github/repository-topics.json` (the filename and schema
`gitbot-fleet` already uses for this purpose):
description 331 chars, leading with the category, then what it is, what it
teaches, who it is for, the technology, and the CNO bridge to
`absolute-zero`. No "formally verified": `src/safety/mod.rs`
holds a complete smlang model but the shipped flow drives safety
through explicit checks, so the claim would be drift.
topics 20/20. The six estate-spine topics, `open-source`, and 13 that
a teacher, maker or developer would actually type — each
justified individually in `docs/REPO_METADATA.adoc`.
`scripts/repo-metadata.sh` plus three `just` recipes make the file reviewable:
`show`, `audit` (read-only, non-zero on drift, works against any sibling
repository), and `apply` (full PATCH of the topics array, so it cannot leave
stale tags). bash + jq, not Python: the estate bans `.py` at the gate.
No scheduled workflow for the audit. `.github/workflows/actions.lock` is keyed
by workflow path, so a workflow this change adds would be rejected before its
first step and report no check run at all.
Also cross-links the siblings this one shares vocabulary and audiences with,
in the README and in `related_repositories`.
Closes #12
Co-authored-by: arena-agent <297053741+arena-agent@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Important Review skippedBot user detected. To trigger a single review, invoke the ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Advanced Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
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.
Closes #12.
GitHub's About box is the only text it indexes that lives outside the tree, and this repository had no description and no domain topics — while being one of only ~5 of the estate's ~343 repositories missing the
open-sourceconvention tag, which is the largest topic page this project belongs on.The description (331 chars, limit 350)
Built from six claims, each backed by something in the tree. It deliberately does not say "formally verified":
src/safety/mod.rsholds a completesmlangmodel, but the shipped demo flow drives safety through explicit checks — the claim would be drift of the kind the estate's Affirmation / claim-drift issue template exists to catch.The topics (20/20)
epistemic-computingepistemic-infrastructureequivalence-aware-computinghyperpolymathtyped-provenanceveridical-computingopen-source— the gaproboticseducationteachingreverse-engineeringstem-educationmechatronicsrustraspberry-piembeddedstate-machinesafety-criticalformal-verificationcertified-null-operationsSpelling is chosen to share topic pages with siblings:
certified-null-operationswithabsolute-zero,safety-criticalwithlustreiser,teachingwithJuliaKids.jl. Per-topic justification, plus the runners-up that lost their slots and why, is indocs/REPO_METADATA.adoc.Why this is reviewable at all
just repo-metadata-audit REPO=<name>/repo-metadata-apply REPO=<name>work against anyhyperpolymath/*repository, which is what makes this a fix for the estate's findability rather than one repo's. The estate rules that make siblings mutually findable are written down at the end ofdocs/REPO_METADATA.adocso they can be applied elsewhere.Notes for the reviewer
.github/repository-topics.jsonfollows the filename and schemagitbot-fleetalready uses for this ("Discovery metadata for GitHub repository topics"), so anything that learns to read one reads all of them. The GitHub description is carried indescription_textbecause that schema already spends thedescriptionkey on explaining the file..github/workflows/actions.lockis keyed by workflow path, so a workflow added here would be rejected before its first step —startup_failure, and therefore no check run at all. Deliberately omitted rather than shipped broken.git ls-files '*.py'and fails the PR estate-wide, so the checker is bash +jq.just repo-metadata-applyperforms a fullPATCHof thetopicsarray, so it cannot leave stale tags behind the way repeated--add-topicwould.Two follow-ups found but deliberately not fixed here
NOASSERTION(REUSE layout:LICENSE+LICENSES/), which suppresses the licence badge and puts it outsidelicense:search filters. Picking what GitHub should report is a legal call, not a metadata fix.docs/CITATIONS.adocreferences../CITATION.cffand../codemeta.json, which do not exist here.robot-vacuum-cleanerships both; adding them would make the project citable.