docs(css): realign project 2509 to the approved maintainability plan — archive falsified Oct-2025 docs, ship ownership map#364
Merged
Conversation
…ed plan) All encode the dead 70-80%-duplication-elimination goal: foundation-extraction ROI math, 'NEVER touch FL layouts' preservation rules, swarm execution prompts, stale baselines. Falsified by compiled+gzip evidence (Phase 1 WP1.2/1.4 + Phase 2 sprint-7 audits). Moved whole into 70-79-archives/superseded-2026-07-12/ with a README stating why. No content edits. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…e 0 deliverable 19 external bundles mapped to owning templates, FL files, and measured gzip sizes (converged production build 2026-07-12); reverse map of all 16 live FL layout files with consuming bundles and retirement status. Includes the easy-to-miss repo-root layouts/course/list.html → course-list bundle. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
… superseded, Phase 0 + rewrite sprints added GOAL OVERVIEW re-goaled (FL burn-down 16→0 replaces the falsified 70-80% line-count target); CUMULATIVE METRICS → burn-down + historical note; Phase 3 WP definitions closed as superseded (preserved in git history + archives); QUICK ACTIONS + navigation repointed to the spec and ownership map; sprint-8 update-log entry added. Spec count fix: 17→16 live FL files (PR #363 merged e93d9b85 away — reviewer finding). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…r doc; repoint CLAUDE.md CSS row PROJECT-INDEX was wall-to-wall dead plan (35.04 as PRIMARY AUTHORITY, 44,420→ 11,884 line targets, WP tables) — replaced with a slim hub: spec, tracker, ownership map, banner'd loading-order reference, standing constraints. css-loading-order-analysis keeps its accurate load-order mechanics but gets a supersede banner on its extraction-strategy framing. CLAUDE.md 'ANY CSS changes' pointer now sends readers to the spec + ownership map instead of the inverted FL-preservation rules. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
…try, dead sprint-3 link) Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 31 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (45)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
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
1 participant
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.
Summary
Brings the whole of
docs/projects/2509-css-migration/in line with the approved maintainability redesign spec (merged in #363). Docs-only (+ CLAUDE.md pointer + one stale .gitignore line). No template/CSS/content changes — visual gates not applicable.Every superseded/archived file was classified by an independent read-only audit agent (47 files: 8 current, 3 updated, 36 archived) before any move.
Per-commit
70-79-archives/superseded-2026-07-12/with a README stating why.git mvonly, no content edits.layouts/course/list.html→course-listbundle.css-loading-order-analysis.mdkeeps its accurate load-order mechanics behind a supersede banner (its extraction-strategy framing is inverted by the strangler plan). CLAUDE.md's "ANY CSS changes" row now points to the spec + ownership map..gitignoreentry for the removed50-59-execution/dir; dead link to a never-existing sprint-3 strategy doc indocs/60.06.Verification
70-79-archives/: clean.🤖 Generated with Claude Code