Add Diátaxis Docs 0.1.4 evidence calibration foundation

[Statusnone420]

What changed

• adds evidence receipt v1 with strict explicit-state validation and a sanitized stdout-first CLI
• preserves the sanitized Cline 0.1.3 dogfood result and adds a six-repository immutable corpus v1 baseline
• adds opt-in sparse corpus preparation plus a read-only runner that keeps provider source and configuration inert
• records unsupported provider semantics as not assessed instead of zero
• bumps canonical and generated distribution identities to 0.1.4 and documents the evidence/scoring separation
• hardens receipt and corpus boundaries against path disclosure, credential-shaped data, malformed or oversized input, unsafe URI wrappers, sparse-checkout patterns, and reparse/output escapes

Why

0.1.4 establishes reproducible evidence before any rubric calibration. It lets future scoring decisions use a pinned cross-provider corpus without changing rubric v2, HEALTH_WEIGHTS, provider scoring, navigation behavior, or the Init-specific receipt.

Impact

Users gain a versioned sanitized receipt, an immutable calibration corpus, and deterministic local tooling. Existing rubric-v2 output remains byte-compatible and weights remain 20/15/20/10/25/10.

Provider-rendered-title scoring and weight/gate changes are deliberately deferred. They are not missing implementation for 0.1.4: this release creates the evidence needed to evaluate those changes safely in a separate calibration PR.

Verification

Candidate SHA: 6a27eb6

• independent exact-SHA review: READY; P0/P1/P2/P3 all zero
• focused evidence/corpus suite: 22/22 passed
• core suite: 247/247 passed
• full Windows-native suite: core, lifecycle, trajectory passed in 632 seconds
• full Linux-native WSL suite from a disposable clone: core, lifecycle, trajectory passed in 100 seconds
• generated adapter parity: clean
• repository checker: 100%, zero findings
• git diff --check and final worktree: clean
• GitHub Actions validate matrix: all Windows and Ubuntu jobs passed

CI: https://github.com/Statusnone420/Skills/actions/runs/29635492076

Parked residual

Same-user filesystem path-swap/hard-link/alias race: 2/10 for addressing in 0.1.4. It requires concurrent or prearranged control by the same local account, has no demonstrated privilege gain, and a complete fix would require substantially broader platform-specific handle-relative I/O work. Recommendation: park for later hardening.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6a27eb669f

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 848884cd14

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 72c8c65d79

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 58ea1d2483

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 893620ecd3

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: a63822db4a

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 66f3414910

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b5185eda66

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 3a55d76a95

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 1105ecdd52

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0595db8a74

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: b72cd86ee8

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 7c3e78bffc

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 1de041a667

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".

[Statusnone420]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. More of your lovely PRs please.

Reviewed commit: 75c60f2410

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".

[Statusnone420]

0.1.4 merge closeout

Merged to main as 3e9f35ec3c88abea47b8cc22da82ea86678c2a66. Main CodeQL and all seven validate jobs pass.

Accepted P3 parks

Scored 1-10 for whether they were worth reopening 0.1.4; none justified another release commit.

• 5/10 — atomic output replacement can lose pre-existing mode/ACL/xattr/ownership metadata. Highest-value follow-up; define the output metadata policy first.
• 4/10 — complex valid ESM remains conservatively unavailable rather than executed or guessed.
• 4/10 — Windows atomic replacement can fail if another process holds the destination without delete sharing.
• 3/10 — broad ESM token boundaries can conservatively mark ordinary import. / export-quality prose unavailable.
• 3/10 — valid JavaScript escape handling lacks a compact committed positive matrix.
• 3/10 — atomic visibility is proven, but file/directory fsync crash durability is not.
• 3/10 — the hard-link regression assumes hard-link support instead of skipping unsupported filesystems.
• 2/10 — forced import failure can leave sys.dont_write_bytecode=True; normal and successful paths restore correctly.
• 2/10 — accepted same-user directory-swap/reparse TOCTOU residual; closing it requires platform-specific handle-relative filesystem work.
• 2/10 — initial-whitespace safe controls are direct-probed but not all committed.
• 2/10 — Python \s is slightly broader than ECMAScript whitespace and can only produce false-unavailable results.
• 2/10 — frontmatter grammar/delimiter policy remains duplicated.
• 2/10 — hard-link inode severance and temporary-file cleanup assertions remain indirect.
• 2/10 — the committed missing-map regression is builder-level; direct end-to-end CLI verification passed.
• 2/10 — a process crash can orphan a temporary output file.
• 2/10 — some title/frontmatter boundary controls are direct-probed rather than committed (BOM/CRLF, ..., spaced/tabbed keys, post-close lookalikes).
• 1/10 — the committed preparer regression starts from the default bytecode flag; direct True -> True restoration also passed.

Separate product park, not a defect: provider-rendered-title scoring and rubric/weight calibration remain intentionally outside 0.1.4. Receipt v1 captures orientation evidence; rubric v2 stays unchanged until corpus evidence justifies a scoring decision.

What 0.1.4 added

• Strict sanitized evidence receipt v1 with explicit completed, not_assessed, unavailable, and failed states.
• Deterministic, semantic, unresolved, Doctor, write-audit, Git, score-gate, category, and unavailable-evidence lanes.
• Sanitized 0.1.3 Cline dogfood receipt preserving the 29% baseline, six deterministic anchor findings, completed zero-finding semantics, and honest unavailable host evidence.
• Immutable six-repository corpus v1: Cline/Mintlify, Supabase/custom MDX, Docusaurus, VitePress, MkDocs/uv, and Hugo/Kubernetes Website.
• Non-destructive sparse corpus preparation plus a read-only exact-commit runner that executes no provider/site code and proves Git state unchanged.
• Provider-neutral literal-H1/frontmatter-title observations that do not alter rubric v2.
• A committed 1,628-line baseline and 1,917-line focused evidence/corpus regression module, plus adapter/version/architecture/MDX compatibility coverage.
• Canonical and generated Claude, Codex, Cursor, Copilot, Grok, Gemini, OpenCode, plugin, and web identities at 0.1.4.

Recommended daily-driver dogfood

Read-only checks were run from the merged candidate and preserved each repository's Git status exactly.

1. cline-desktop — best daily driver and dirty-worktree evidence test: 83%, blocked, 67 unreachable pages plus three state conflicts.
2. CD Report Hub — best clean baseline: 94%, ten missing links and one duplicate title.
3. Bulwark — best fail-closed/missing-map test: 25%, one explicit missing-map plus three state conflicts.
4. poop-chat-redux — lightweight README/control case: 35%, twelve unreachable pages.

The upstream D:\cline Mintlify checkout remains the strongest provider-scale reference, but the four repositories above exercise the user's own daily workflows.