docs: synchronize documentation and finalize Phase 1 checklist

[Kuldeep2822k]

Description

This PR synchronizes all project documentation with the completed Phase 1 codebase, updates release changelog records, and marks Phase 1 checklist items as complete.

Key Changes

• **\README.md*: Aligned data model frontmatter example with flat on-disk schema (\depends_on, \ opic_mastery, \difficulty: beginner, flat metrics), fixed internal markdown links to \planning/, and clarified MIT license.
• **\�gent.md**: Updated architecture guide to reflect full Phase 1 state (implemented --json\ and non-TTY streaming, \Difficulty\ enum, resolved \T-general\ bug, explicit division guards, and clarified \process.exitCode\ policy).
• **\CHANGELOG.md**: Added release notes under [Unreleased]\ detailing all Phase 1 PR deliverables.
• Planning & Trigger Trackers: Synchronized \PHASE_1_CHECKLIST.md, \PHASE_1_ISSUES.md, and \TRIGGER_TRACKER.md\ to reflect completed Gates 0–5 and merged PRs (fix(dashboard): guard against division by zero in statistics calculation #53, feat(cli): display onboarding guidance on zero-topic empty vaults #54, fix(session): require topic or resolve from hot memory, eliminating phantom T-general #55, fix(types): standardize Topic.difficulty as string enum type #56, feat(cli): implement machine-readable --json output across reading commands #57).

Type of Change

• \eat: A new feature
• \ix: A bug fix
• \docs: Documentation updates
• 
  efactor: Code refactoring without feature/bug changes
• \perf: Performance improvement
• \ est: Adding or updating tests
• \ci: CI/CD workflow changes

Checklist

• Code compiles cleanly via
  px tsc --noEmit\
• All unit and invariant tests pass via
  pm test\
• Production build succeeds via
  pm run build\
• 
  pm pack --dry-run\ produces clean package output
• Zero \�ny\ casts in \src/\

[greptile-apps]

Kuldeep2822k has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@Kuldeep2822k, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 59 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

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 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 configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Free

Run ID: fc487276-4f27-490b-a730-01af5d62ea8f

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2b5bae5 and 73aac35.

📒 Files selected for processing (6)

• CHANGELOG.md
• README.md
• agent.md
• planning/PHASE_1_CHECKLIST.md
• planning/PHASE_1_ISSUES.md
• planning/TRIGGER_TRACKER.md

---

Note

🎁 Summarized by CodeRabbit Free

Your organization is on the Free plan. CodeRabbit will generate a high-level summary and a walkthrough for each pull request. For a comprehensive line-by-line review, please upgrade your subscription to CodeRabbit Pro by visiting https://app.coderabbit.ai/login.

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

[qodo-code-review]

PR Summary by Qodo

Sync Phase 1 docs and release metadata for v0.2.0

📝 Documentation ⚙️ Configuration changes 🕐 10-20 Minutes

AI Description

• Publish v0.2.0 release notes and bump npm package version to 0.2.0.
• Align README/agent docs with Phase 1 behavior (Difficulty enum, links, output rules).
• Mark Phase 1 planning artifacts complete and record issue-resolution status.

Diagram

graph TD
  R["v0.2.0 release"] --> PJ["package.json"] --> PL["package-lock.json"]
  R --> CL["CHANGELOG.md"] --> RD["README.md"] --> AG["agent.md"]
  RD --> PH1["planning/Phase 1 docs"]

Loading

High-Level Assessment

The following are alternative approaches to this PR:

1. Adopt automated versioning/changelog tooling

• ➕ Reduces manual edits across package.json/package-lock/changelog
• ➕ Standardizes release-note format and consistency over time
• ➖ Adds tooling/setup overhead (e.g., changesets/standard-version)
• ➖ May be overkill for a small repo or infrequent releases

2. Single-source release metadata + generated docs snippets

• ➕ Prevents drift between README/agent/planning docs and actual behavior
• ➕ Makes docs updates more incremental and verifiable
• ➖ Requires building/maintaining a small doc-generation pipeline
• ➖ Can reduce readability/editability for contributors who prefer plain markdown

Recommendation: The current manual synchronization is appropriate for a Phase 1 wrap-up and a minor release. If releases become more frequent, consider introducing automated versioning/changelog generation (and optionally generating repeated doc snippets) to reduce drift and human error.

Files changed (8) +142 / -523

Documentation (6) +139 / -520

CHANGELOG.mdAdd v0.2.0 release notes and tighten 0.1.0 wording +19/-3

Add v0.2.0 release notes and tighten 0.1.0 wording

• Introduces a new 0.2.0 section dated 2026-08-14, documenting major Phase 1 additions/fixes (JSON output, Difficulty enum normalization, session topic handling, empty-vault onboarding). Also rephrases two 0.1.0 bullets to remove overly narrative language while preserving meaning.

CHANGELOG.md

README.mdAlign examples and internal links with Phase 1 docs structure +6/-6

Align examples and internal links with Phase 1 docs structure

• Updates the topic frontmatter example to use the string Difficulty enum ('difficulty: beginner') instead of a numeric value. Fixes internal links to point to 'planning/*' documents and finalizes licensing text to reference the MIT LICENSE file.

README.md

agent.mdRefresh architecture/contracts to match implemented Phase 1 behavior +4/-4

Refresh architecture/contracts to match implemented Phase 1 behavior

• Updates output-style guidance to prefer explicit 'total > 0' guards for division-based percentages. Refreshes on-disk format notes to reflect the standardized 'Difficulty' enum + 'normalizeDifficulty()' helper, and clarifies session topic selection rules and '--json' implementation status.

agent.md

PHASE_1_CHECKLIST.mdMark Phase 1 gates as completed and verified +61/-217

Mark Phase 1 gates as completed and verified

• Converts Phase 1 tasks from unchecked planning items to completed checkboxes and simplifies/remove stop/verification boilerplate. Updates the Phase 1 completion section to reflect readiness for Phase 2 and notes deterministic CLI plus '--json' support.

planning/PHASE_1_CHECKLIST.md

PHASE_1_ISSUES.mdSummarize Phase 1 issue resolution status with PR references +39/-253

Summarize Phase 1 issue resolution status with PR references

• Refactors the issues document from detailed problem statements into a status-oriented record, calling out which items were resolved in specific PRs and which are deferred to Phase 2. Adds a compact summary matrix linking to resolved PRs.

planning/PHASE_1_ISSUES.md

TRIGGER_TRACKER.mdUpdate trigger tracker to reflect Phase 1 completion and Phase 2 backlog +10/-37

Update trigger tracker to reflect Phase 1 completion and Phase 2 backlog

• Reorganizes the tracker sections, removes the old Trigger 3 quick-wins table, and updates Trigger 4 items to match current Phase 2 framing (validation framework + validate --fix). Adds a completed-in-Phase-1 section enumerating merged and verified items with dates/PRs.

planning/TRIGGER_TRACKER.md

Other (2) +3 / -3

package-lock.jsonBump lockfile package version to 0.2.0 +2/-2

Bump lockfile package version to 0.2.0

• Updates the root package version fields from 0.1.0 to 0.2.0 to match the intended release.

package-lock.json

package.jsonBump package version to 0.2.0 +1/-1

Bump package version to 0.2.0

• Updates the published package version from 0.1.0 to 0.2.0 for the minor release.

package.json

[qodo-code-review]

Code Review by Qodo

🐞 Bugs (0) 📘 Rule violations (0) 📜 Skill insights (0)

1. Frontmatter example still wrong ✓ Resolved 🐞 Bug ≡ Correctness

Description

The README Data Model snippet now uses the correct string difficulty, but it still documents a
nested dependencies/assessment/review schema that the current CLI doesn’t read or write (it
uses flat keys like depends_on, topic_mastery, conceptual, ease_factor, etc.). Users
following the README will end up with dependency/mastery data being ignored by
plan/progress/validate unless they adopt/import via the CLI.

Code

README.md[143]

+difficulty: beginner

Relevance

●●● Strong

Docs-sync PR; README schema mismatch would confuse users, and repo favors aligning docs with actual
flat frontmatter.

PR-#7
PR-#56

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The README example still uses nested dependencies/assessment/review, but the CLI writes/reads
flat keys and expects depends_on/topic_mastery etc., so the documented schema does not match
real behavior.

README.md[133-160]
src/cli/adopt.ts[68-86]
src/cli/progress.ts[42-52]
agent.md[50-55]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
`README.md`'s Data Model frontmatter example still shows a nested schema (`dependencies`, `assessment`, `review`) even though the implementation reads/writes a flat frontmatter shape (e.g., `depends_on`, `topic_mastery`, `conceptual`, `ease_factor`, etc.). This PR updated `difficulty` to the new string enum in that same example, which makes the example look “current” while still being incompatible with the actual on-disk format.

### Issue Context
- `adopt` writes flat keys.
- `progress`/`next`/`validate` read flat keys.
- `agent.md` explicitly documents that topic frontmatter is flat.

### Fix Focus Areas
- README.md[133-160]
- src/cli/adopt.ts[68-86]
- src/cli/progress.ts[42-52]
- agent.md[50-55]

### What to change
- Replace the README YAML example to match the real frontmatter contract used by the CLI:
 - use `depends_on` (not `dependencies`)
 - use `topic_mastery` (not nested `assessment`)
 - show the flat score/review fields (`conceptual`, `practical`, `debug`, `feynman`, `assessed_at`, `ease_factor`, `interval_days`, `repetition`, `lapses`, `last_quality`, `last_reviewed_at`, `due_at`)
- If you still want to document the conceptual nested model (`assessment`/`review`), explicitly label it as a *TypeScript API shape* and clearly state that on-disk notes use the flat schema.

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

2. Exit-code guidance contradicts code ✓ Resolved 🐞 Bug ⚙ Maintainability

Description

agent.md states that “Every code path calls process.exit(n) explicitly,” but multiple CLI
handlers now return normally and set process.exitCode on failure paths (or just return on
success). This mismatch can cause contributors to add premature process.exit() calls that truncate
piped/JSON output or bypass cleanup.

Code

agent.md[25]

+- Output style: plain `console.log`/`console.error` — **no ANSI colors, no tables, no progress bars, no emoji**. Symbols: `✓` success, `⚠` warning, `•` bullets, `─` separators, `=== ... ===` headers (boxed `╔═╗` only on dashboard), 2-space sub-detail indents, `(not set)` / `(none)` empty states, `.toFixed(1)` percentages. Always guard division calculations with `total > 0` checks.

Relevance

●●● Strong

Team recently accepted moving away from abrupt process.exit() to returns/exitCode patterns; doc
should match.

PR-#54
PR-#55

ⓘ Recommendations generated based on similar findings in past PRs

Evidence

The guide asserts explicit process.exit() everywhere, but current command handlers demonstrate
process.exitCode + return patterns, so the documentation is inconsistent with the real code
style.

agent.md[20-26]
src/cli/validate.ts[67-108]
src/cli/next.ts[60-84]

Agent prompt

The issue below was found during a code review. Follow the provided context and guidance below and implement a solution

### Issue description
`agent.md`’s CLI conventions claim that every code path explicitly calls `process.exit(n)`, but the implementation uses `process.exitCode` + `return` in several commands. This is a contributor-facing contract mismatch and can lead to regressions (truncated output, skipped cleanup) if future changes follow the guide instead of the code.

### Issue Context
- Some commands still use `process.exit(...)` (especially in older/imperative handlers), but newer handlers use `process.exitCode` and return.
- The guide should describe the intended policy: when to set `process.exitCode` vs when to call `process.exit()`.

### Fix Focus Areas
- agent.md[20-26]
- src/cli/validate.ts[67-108]
- src/cli/next.ts[60-84]

### What to change
- Replace the absolute statement with something like:
 - “Prefer `process.exitCode = N; return;` for normal completion and recoverable errors so Node can flush output.”
 - “Reserve `process.exit(5)` for truly unrecoverable/unexpected exceptions at the top level (after logging).”
- Ensure the ‘vault path not configured’ guidance matches the shared `validateVaultPath()` behavior (which sets `process.exitCode` and returns).

ⓘ Copy this prompt and use it to remediate the issue with your preferred AI generation tools

---

Context

Review mode: ⚖️ Balanced: Although primarily documentation and release-record updates, the PR includes package version metadata and extensive checklist/status changes whose accuracy affects release and project contracts; this is not clearly skip-safe, but the diff does not modify runtime logic densely enough for extended.

Tip of the day

💡 Did you know, you can describe a rule in plain language on the Rules page and Qodo drafts it for you

More tips ↗ | Customize Qodo ↗ | Qodo docs ↗

[greptile-apps]

Kuldeep2822k has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.

[greptile-apps]

Kuldeep2822k has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.

[greptile-apps]

Kuldeep2822k has reached the 50-credit limit for trial accounts. To continue receiving code reviews, upgrade your plan.

[Kuldeep2822k]

LGTM