Execution Log: documentation site for the-loop

Append-only log of progress for the user's visibility. Checked in alongside the spec at docs/specs/issue-70/.

Phase transitions

Phase	Entered	Reviewed/approved by	Notes
requirements-definition	2026-07-23	@MadaraUchiha-314 (issue #70 body; spec backfilled during PR #71)	constraints taken from the issue
design	2026-07-23	@MadaraUchiha-314 (PR #71 review: "use docs/, don't duplicate")	VitePress srcDir = docs/ ; decision-033
tasks-breakdown	2026-07-23	@MadaraUchiha-314 (PR #71)	8-task DAG (incl. the restructure + backfill)
implementation	2026-07-23		site built; make check/pre-commit green
needs-review	2026-07-23		awaiting owner review of PR #71 (revised)
complete

Progress entries

2026-07-23T17:35Z — first implementation (PR #71, docs-site/)

• Phase: implementation
• Did: scaffolded VitePress in a docs-site/ folder with a sync script that pulled docs/architecture, docs/roadmap.md, docs/decisions, docs/capabilities, cli/README.md, and skills/the-loop/reference/ into the site; authored guide/ reference/CLI/developer pages; added .github/workflows/docs.yml (GitHub Pages); updated .gitignore, markdownlint, root README.
• Checkpoint/tests: npm run docs:build (87 pages) + pre-commit run --all-files green. Opened PR #71.
• Next: owner review.
• Blockers: GitHub Pages must be enabled in repo settings (owner-only).

2026-07-23T18:10Z — PR #71 review: two changes requested

• Phase: design → implementation (rework)
• Did: owner raised two points on PR #71:
  1. "Why a new folder? Use docs. I don't want contents duplicated." — reworked the site to set VitePress srcDir = docs/, rendering the existing docs/ tree in place. Removed the whole-of-docs/ sync; the only remaining build-time copy is the two sources that structurally cannot live under docs/ (cli/README.md, the PyPI package readme; skills/the-loop/reference/, read at runtime by the harness). docs/specs/** and docs/reports/** excluded via srcExclude. Recorded the approach as decision-033.
  2. "Where are the requirements.md/design.md for this work?" — backfilled this spec (requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md, this log) so the work item conforms to the-loop's own 3-phase workflow. The retroactive sequencing is stated honestly in each artifact.
• Checkpoint/tests: npm run docs:build clean (73 pages, docs/ in place; no specs/reports HTML in dist); pre-commit run --all-files green; no docs-site references remain; uv.lock churn from local uv run reverted.
• Next: push the revision to PR #71, reply to both review threads.
• Blockers: GitHub Pages enablement (unchanged; owner-only).

2026-07-23T18:30Z — PR #71 review round 2: include specs/reports, drop roadmap

• Phase: design → implementation (rework)
• Did: three more owner points on PR #71:
  1. "why are we excluding docs and reports? we should keep it." — removed srcExclude; docs/specs/ and docs/reports/ now render as site pages. Added a filesystem-generated specs sidebar (specSidebarGroups() in config.mts) so each issue-<n> group and its artifacts appear automatically, plus docs/specs/index.md / docs/reports/index.md overview pages and Developer-nav entries.
  2. "remove docs/roadmap.md — stale and misleading, we'll do a proper one later." — deleted the file and updated the few active references (guide how-it-works, architecture.md, contributing.md, the sync script comment, and this spec) to point at issues + the decision log instead. Historical specs/decisions that mention it are left as-is (historical record; ignoreDeadLinks covers the now-absent file).
  3. Folded both into decision-033, requirements.md, design.md, tasks.md (task 9).
• Checkpoint/tests: npm run docs:build clean — every spec artifact + report renders; specs sidebar lists all work items; no /roadmap route; pre-commit run --all-files green; uv.lock churn reverted.
• Next: push, reply on the review threads.
• Blockers: GitHub Pages enablement (unchanged; owner-only).

2026-07-23T19:00Z — PR #71 review round 3: bun + TypeScript-only toolchain

• Phase: implementation (rework)
• Did: two related owner points on PR #71:
  1. "NO JS. Only TS." — converted docs/scripts/sync-content.mjs → sync-content.mts with explicit types; Node 22 / bun both strip types natively, so it runs directly with no build step.
  2. "use bun … as the package manager and to run the scripts." — switched package.json scripts to bun run, replaced package-lock.json with bun.lock (bun install), and moved docs.yml from setup-node + npm ci to oven-sh/setup-bun + bun install --frozen-lockfile + bun run docs:build. This matches the-loop's own tooling.packageManager.ts: bun. Updated contributing.md, decision-033, and this spec (task 10).
• Checkpoint/tests: bun install + bun run docs:build clean (141 pages); no .mjs / package-lock.json / npm left in the docs toolchain; pre-commit run --all-files green; uv.lock churn reverted.
• Next: push, reply on the two review threads.
• Blockers: GitHub Pages enablement (unchanged; owner-only).

Review cycles

Cycle	Type (self/critic/security)	Reviewer	Outcome	Link
1	human	@MadaraUchiha-314	2 changes requested (no-duplicate; backfill spec)	PR #71
2	human	@MadaraUchiha-314	3 changes requested (include specs/reports; remove roadmap)	PR #71
3	human	@MadaraUchiha-314	2 changes requested (TS-only; bun toolchain)	PR #71

Security review (gate)

• Mechanism: the-loop checklist (security.review.mechanism: auto → checklist for a static-site change).
• Outcome: pass — public static site, no runtime surface, no secrets; Pages deploy uses GitHub Actions OIDC with least-privilege scopes. See design.md §Security design.
• Human sign-off: n/a (risk tier below security.review.humanSignOffMinTier).

Final validation evidence

• bun install + bun run docs:build — clean build from docs/ as srcDir; guide/reference/cli/architecture/capabilities/decisions/operating-model/contributing pages present, plus every docs/specs/<id>/ artifact and docs/reports/ page (specs sidebar generated from the filesystem). Toolchain is bun + TypeScript (.mts) only.
• pre-commit run --all-files — ruff, pyright, pytest, markdownlint, schema validation all pass.