[Code Quality] Standardize dependency installation documentation between README and workflows

[github-actions]

Description

The README instructs users to use uv sync for dependency installation, but actual GitHub Actions workflows use pip install. This creates confusion about the recommended approach and may cause issues for contributors.

Problem

From the Backlog Burner discussion (#221) and QA Report (#220):

README approach:

• Recommends uv sync --all-extras
• Suggests modern Python packaging tool

Workflow approach:

• Uses pip install -r requirements.txt
• Standard pip-based installation

Impact:

• Contributors may follow README but workflows use different approach
• Inconsistent documentation creates confusion
• Both work, but mixed messaging

Suggested Changes

Option 1: Standardize on pip (Simpler)

Update README to match workflow approach:

### Installation

1. Clone the repository:
   ```bash
   git clone https://github.com/abhimehro/ctrld-sync.git
   cd ctrld-sync
   ```

2. Install dependencies:
   ```bash
   pip install -r requirements.txt
   ```

3. (Optional) Install in development mode:
   ```bash
   pip install -e .
   ```

Option 2: Standardize on uv (Modern)

Update workflows to use uv:

• Add uv installation step to workflows
• Change pip install to uv sync
• Benefits: Faster installs, better dependency resolution
• Trade-off: Additional tool dependency

Option 3: Document both approaches

### Installation

Choose your preferred installation method:

**Using pip (traditional):**
```bash
pip install -r requirements.txt
```

**Using uv (recommended for development):**
```bash
uv sync --all-extras
```

Note: CI workflows currently use pip.

Files Affected

If choosing Option 1 (pip):

• README.md (installation section)

If choosing Option 2 (uv):

• .github/workflows/sync.yml
• .github/workflows/bandit.yml
• .github/actions/*/build-steps/action.yml
• README.md (keep current)

If choosing Option 3 (both):

• README.md (clarify both approaches)

Success Criteria

• Documentation clearly states which method is recommended
• Examples match what CI workflows actually use
• No confusion between uv and pip approaches
• Both methods work correctly if both are documented

Recommendation

Option 1 (pip) is recommended because:

• Matches current CI implementation
• Simpler for new contributors
• No additional tool installation required
• Can switch to uv later if desired

Priority

Medium - Affects contributor experience and documentation quality

Source

Extracted from:

• Daily Backlog Burner #221 - Medium Priority task 🎨 Palette: Add sync summary table and fix syntax error #4
• Daily QA Report #220 - Issue ⚡ Bolt: Parallelize folder data fetching #3 "README instructs to use uv commands"

🔍 Task mining by Discussion Task Miner - Code Quality Improvement Agent

To install this workflow, run gh aw add github/gh-aw/.github/workflows/discussion-task-miner.md@94662b1dee8ce96c876ba9f33b3ab8be32de82a4. View source at https://github.com/github/gh-aw/tree/94662b1dee8ce96c876ba9f33b3ab8be32de82a4/.github/workflows/discussion-task-miner.md.

• expires on Feb 19, 2026, 5:36 PM UTC

[github-actions]

This issue was automatically closed because it expired on 2026-02-19T17:36:16.551Z.

Closed by Workflow