docs(topics): tighten v0.2.0 release audit coverage

[flyingrobots]

Linked Issue

Release gate context: #625. This PR closes the docs/topics/ release-gate correction found after PR #650 merged and before tagging v0.2.0.

Branch / Issue-Title Check

• Exception: docs/topic-audit-v0.2.0 is a release-gate docs audit branch, not a single issue-title slug.

Summary

Tightens docs/topics/ coverage and accuracy for the just-merged v0.2.0 platform batch before cutting the release tag.

Why

The v0.2.0 release checklist requires auditing docs/topics/ for release-relevant accuracy and coverage. The post-merge audit found that the new topic surface existed, but two release-relevant facts were either wrong or under-covered:

• HOLMES local-check examples used invalid cargo wesley ... commands.
• Manifest commentMode behavior, especially silent, was not explicit in the topic/reference path.
• Descriptor-only extension fixture/module-authoring workflow was not discoverable from the topic index.

Changes

• Corrected HOLMES local-check commands to use cargo run --bin wesley -- ....
• Added commentMode behavior to the project manifest topic and reference page.
• Added commentMode and invalid-manifest fallback behavior to the HOLMES CI topic.
• Added commentMode behavior and corrected focused checks in the HOLMES integration architecture page.
• Added descriptor-only extension fixture workflow discovery to the topic index.

Method Evidence

• Design doc linked or not required: not required; this is release-gate documentation correction.
• Tests or validation evidence included.
• Playback/witness included or not required.
• Retro or closeout evidence included or not required: release gate Release gate: current minor release #625 remains open until v0.2.0 is tagged and published.

Tracker Hygiene

• Linked issue had work-in-progress while active, or no single linked implementation issue applies.
• Linked issue lane/status/legend labels are current: Release gate: current minor release #625 remains the v0.2.0 release gate.
• Follow-up work is captured as GitHub Issues, not hidden in chat or local-only backlog files.

Risk

Low. This is docs-only, but it is release-gate relevant because the corrected commands and topic coverage are part of the v0.2.0 release audit.

Backout

Revert this PR before tagging v0.2.0, then rerun the docs/topics/ release audit and document the exception in #625. Preferred path is to keep this correction and tag from the resulting main commit.

Testing

• cargo xtask docs-check
• git diff --check
• pnpm exec prettier --check docs/topics/README.md docs/topics/project-manifests.md docs/topics/holmes-ci.md docs/architecture/holmes-integration.md docs/reference/project-manifest.md
• cargo run --bin wesley -- config validate --json
• cargo run --bin wesley -- config changed-schemas --json
• BATS_LIB_PATH=test/vendor bats -t test/ci-workflows.bats
• node --test packages/wesley-holmes/test/pr-comment.test.mjs
• pre-push cargo xtask preflight

EvidenceMap / SourceMap (if applicable)

N/A.

Screenshots / Logs (optional)

N/A.

Merge Strategy

• Merge commit only; no rebase.
• Delete branch after merge.

Checklist

• One-topic PR with tight diff
• Rust-native preflight passes (cargo xtask preflight via pre-push)
• Legacy package preflight not required for docs-only change
• No widened permissions/secrets in workflows
• Docs updated if behavior changed

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@flyingrobots, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 7 minutes and 51 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more credits in the billing tab to continue.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

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 credits.

🚦 How do rate 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 see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: eadef768-0737-45a4-ae0e-0a0f995adbfa

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between fedb747 and e8912d1.

📒 Files selected for processing (5)

• docs/architecture/holmes-integration.md
• docs/reference/project-manifest.md
• docs/topics/README.md
• docs/topics/holmes-ci.md
• docs/topics/project-manifests.md

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Commit unit tests in branch docs/topic-audit-v0.2.0

---

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.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: e8912d1c60

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]

Don't document append until the workflow honors it

When a manifest sets commentMode: append, this now tells users it creates a new comment per run, but in the checked .github/workflows/wesley-holmes.yml the comment-report job only special-cases silent, and the comment script still finds any existing marked github-actions[bot] comment and calls updateComment. PRs using append will still get a single overwritten HOLMES comment, so this reference misleads operators choosing an audit-trail comment mode unless the workflow skips the update path for append or the docs state that append is not implemented.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.