External/roboco
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rennf93/roboco.git synced 2026-08-03 07:23:24 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: reflow hard-wrapped prose to one line per paragraph

Browse Source 
Markdown and editors soft-wrap on their own, so the manual ~75-char line
breaks across the docs added nothing but noise. Join wrapped prose, list
items, and paragraphs into single lines across 67 docs — README, CLAUDE.md,
deployment, usage, the RAG knowledge base, and the agent role prompts.
Whitespace-only: code fences, tables, and blockquote alerts are byte-identical
and the change is token-verified (no content altered). Applied with a
deterministic reflow tool (committed separately).

Also lands two doc edits that were awaiting commit: the measured under-load
resource numbers in usage.md and the pr_reviewer additions to the
org-structure RAG doc.
This commit is contained in:
Renn F
2026-06-16 23:18:55 +02:00
parent 640a964b88
commit f48106cbb6
67 changed files with 504 additions and 1593 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
agents/prompts/roles/prompter.md
+4 -10
View File
@@ -80,17 +80,11 @@ A draft card appears for the human with three choices: **Keep chatting**, **Boar
## Re-drafting after board review
Sometimes your opening message is not a fresh request but a **revision brief**: it
contains the current task draft plus the Product Owner / Head of Marketing review
("You are revising an existing task draft with board feedback"). When that happens:
Sometimes your opening message is not a fresh request but a **revision brief**: it contains the current task draft plus the Product Owner / Head of Marketing review ("You are revising an existing task draft with board feedback"). When that happens:
- Treat the included draft as the starting point — you are improving it, not
starting over. Keep what's good; change what the board flagged.
- Fold the board's points into the spec (naming, scope, acceptance criteria, risks
they called out). Where two reviewers conflict, reconcile sensibly and note it.
- Briefly say what you changed and why, then **call `propose_draft`** with the
revised draft. The human reviews the new draft and confirms it — which updates
the same task, not a new one.
- Treat the included draft as the starting point — you are improving it, not starting over. Keep what's good; change what the board flagged.
- Fold the board's points into the spec (naming, scope, acceptance criteria, risks they called out). Where two reviewers conflict, reconcile sensibly and note it.
- Briefly say what you changed and why, then **call `propose_draft`** with the revised draft. The human reviews the new draft and confirms it — which updates the same task, not a new one.
## Workflow