feat: publish distinct skills and workflows wiki - #7
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 4d83e3f2df
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| Third-party files under `wiki/skills/` are excluded from the CC BY 4.0 | ||
| grant below. They retain the upstream MIT licenses listed in | ||
| `wiki/sources.json` and reproduced in `wiki/licenses/`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because this remains a publishable package and npm pack --dry-run includes all 268 wiki/skills files, leaving package.json with only "license": "CC-BY-4.0" causes registries, SBOMs, and automated compliance tooling to report the newly bundled MIT material under the wrong license. The npm package metadata documentation requires accurate package-level license metadata; use an appropriate SPDX expression or SEE LICENSE IN LICENSE.md, or exclude the wiki from the package.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| "wiki/**/*.md", | ||
| "wiki/**/*.json", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When the default publication gate is run, these new globs scan the wiki Markdown and JSON but omit all seven public wiki/licenses/*.txt files; publication-scan --list confirms that none of those notices reaches scanPublicationText. A refreshed upstream license containing a non-example email, private path, or token-shaped value can therefore pass bun run validate unexamined, so include wiki/**/*.txt and assert one of the license files appears in scan coverage.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| 优先 `AskQuestion` 工具（每项一个独立 question）；无工具则停下、编号列出问题等用户答复。 | ||
| - 修复：最小切片，有修复才写 `review/repair-log.md`。 | ||
| - **Colophon · 不可移除**：scaffold 在 `article/Article.tsx` 末尾自带 colophon Raw 块 | ||
| （`Made with [beautiful-article](github 仓库) · <主题> theme`，低对比小字、theme token 自适应）。 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an agent follows this mandatory colophon instruction, github 仓库 is emitted as the Markdown link target and resolves as a broken relative URL rather than the beautiful-article repository. Replace it with the pinned upstream repository URL, consistent with the other supporting-link repairs in these snapshots.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
Changes
Test plan
bun run validate: 25 tests, workflow and skill checks, catalog coverage, publication scan.Notes
This is a reference wiki, not a full installation bundle. Six private-project
skills, 362 unreviewed local command files, and vendor plugin instructions are
excluded. Reference-only entries are not relicensed. Analytics describe
collection composition, not usage or quality.