Documentation Process

Documentation process

The standing system this repo's documentation runs on, in one page. If you're wondering "where does X go" or "why does the wiki look like that," this is the answer.

The core rule: docs/ is source of truth, the wiki is generated

Everything durable about this fork lives in docs/ and is committed alongside the code it describes. The GitHub wiki (ProxyPrints.github.io.wiki) is a generated view of a curated subset of docs/ — never a second place to write documentation.

Never hand-edit a wiki page this system manages. Every generated page carries a <!-- GENERATED PAGE --> marker at the top saying so, and naming its docs/ source. Edit the source instead; the page regenerates on the next push to master that touches docs/** (or on-demand via workflow_dispatch). A hand-edit to a generated page survives only until the next regeneration, then silently vanishes — not a data-loss risk (the source is what's real) but a wasted edit.

• What's published: exactly the files listed in .github/wiki-publish-map.json, a hand-curated mapping mirroring docs/README.md's own audience groups ("Understanding the system" / "Using it" / "Operating it"). Update the mapping file whenever docs/README.md's index changes — the publish workflow does not parse docs/README.md's prose, by design (parsing markdown structure at runtime is fragile; a hand-maintained mapping is not).
• Renames update the mapping in the same PR. If a published doc's source path or its wiki page name changes, update wiki-publish-map.json in that same PR — a wiki page's URL is its identity, and GitHub wikis have no redirects: renaming a page in the mapping doesn't move the old URL, it abandons it. Prefer a stable wiki name once picked, even across a source-file rename or migration — e.g. docs/self-hosting.md still publishes as the wiki's existing Instance-Admin-Guide page (not a new Self-Hosting page) specifically so nothing that already links to it breaks.
• What's excluded, always: docs/proposals/ (drafts/HOLD specs — not yet real, shouldn't read as if they are), docs/reports/ (relayed session artifacts, not reference material), docs/audits/ (point-in-time findings, same reasoning).
• pointer_pages: a page whose content has fully moved elsewhere (e.g. Research-and-Proofs, once its own placeholder, now superseded by docs/theory.md) becomes a small generated stub linking to the page that replaced it, rather than being deleted — same reasoning as the rename rule above: the URL stays alive even though the content doesn't live there anymore.
• legacy_pages: any wiki page that predates this system and has no docs/ source yet goes here so it stays linked from the generated Home/Sidebar instead of going dark. Empty as of this writing — the 3 pages that used to sit here (User-Guide, Instance-Admin-Guide, Research-and-Proofs) are now either migrated into docs/ (the first two) or a pointer_pages entry (the third). The publish workflow never touches a page outside all three lists — it only ever deletes a page it can prove it generated, by checking for that page's own marker.
• Mechanism: .github/workflows/docs-wiki-publish.yml together with .github/scripts/publish_wiki.py. Requires a WIKI_PUSH_TOKEN repo secret (a classic PAT — GitHub wikis are a separate git repo the default GITHUB_TOKEN can't push to); see that workflow's own header for exact setup steps.

Lint catches mechanical rot

docs-lint.yml runs docs_lint.py on every PR touching docs/** and weekly regardless. It checks two things, mechanically:

1. Every [[wiki-link]] and markdown [text](path) link resolves to a real file.
2. Every backtick-quoted, path-shaped reference in prose (e.g. `frontend/src/features/card/Card.tsx`) exists in the repo (or is a known-gitignored file, or an explicit allowlist entry with a stated reason).

Failures annotate the PR diff. It never auto-fixes anything — a broken link/path is a fact worth a human's one-line correction, not a silent rewrite.

Known limitation, stated plainly: this can only catch broken links/paths. It cannot tell a stale status claim ("not yet built" for something now shipped, a "current stage" claim a later section already contradicts, a date stamp that's drifted) from a true one — resolving that requires reading the doc's actual content and cross-checking it against reality, which is exactly what the next section is for.

The judgment coherence pass (quarterly)

Lint catches what's broken. It cannot catch what's wrong but still resolves — a Part header claiming "in progress" for something the same file's own status section says merged, a cross-reference pointing at a real file that no longer contains the claimed content, a "known gap" that's actually long since fixed. That needs a human (or an agent session) actually reading every doc and checking its claims, on a cadence loose enough that rot has time to accumulate into something worth a dedicated pass, but tight enough that it doesn't compound for years. Quarterly is that cadence.

This checklist is derived directly from the first such pass (2026-07-18):

1. Inventory every file in docs/. For each: is its status language (dates, "planned"/"in progress"/"not yet built", "HOLD"/"DRAFT" markers) still accurate? Does it have cross-references, and do they still point somewhere real? Is it reachable from CLAUDE.md's index or docs/README.md — or orphaned?
2. Cross-check every status claim against something real, not against another equally-stale doc: the same file's other sections, a sibling doc's own status section, the actual current codebase (grep/ find for a referenced path or symbol), or git log for a cited PR number or date. A claim that can't be cheaply verified this way (an external PR's live open/closed state, a third party's stated intentions) gets flagged for a session with the access to check it — never guessed at.
3. Watch for duplicate or colliding headings within a long file (an anchor collision is a real navigation hazard, easy to miss by reading linearly).
4. Watch for miscategorized content — an item sitting under "Known gaps" that's actually resolved, a bullet under the wrong header entirely.
5. Check docs/README.md's own index for completeness (every doc in a bucket it should be in) and .github/wiki-publish-map.json for drift from it (the mapping is hand-maintained specifically so this check has to be a deliberate step, not something that happens for free).
6. Check CLAUDE.md's flat docs index for parity with docs/README.md — both should list the same "current" reference docs; a doc missing from one but not the other is exactly the kind of gap this pass exists to catch.
7. Compile a migration/decision list before touching anything non-mechanical. If a wiki-only page has no docs/ source, or a fix would mean rewriting a doc's actual technical content (not just its status line or a cross-reference), that's a decision for the owner, not something to resolve unilaterally mid-pass.
8. Fix only what's mechanical: status lines, cross-references, stale paths, miscategorized bullets, duplicate headings. Leave technical content — and always leave docs/theory.md's substance — untouched unless the fix is explicitly approved as its own, separate piece of work.

Upstream wiki: linked and attributed, never mirrored

docs-upstream-wiki-drift.yml together with upstream_wiki_drift.py check weekly whether chilli-axe/mpc-autofill's wiki has changed since the last check, and update docs/upstreaming/upstream-wiki-drift.md's table in place — which page changed, when, at which upstream commit.

This is detection only, deliberately: upstream's wiki text has no clear license, so nothing from it is ever copied into this repo, in this workflow or anywhere else. The correct response to a drift-log entry is always a human decision — read the upstream page, and if it's worth reflecting here, write our own words, linking to and crediting the upstream page as the source, on review. A drift-log row is a prompt to look, never content to paste.