uhhm/questions
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
120 Commits 3 Branches 0 Tags
8d1b473c337221e8740d21cf4113f2aa77e85f51
Commit Graph
6 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Bendik Aagaard LynghaugandClaude Fable 5 ad9dd1762b The tree is the router: nest the develop flow, section-gate review 
develop/ holds the whole proposal flow (index = owners desk,
proposal = public form, proposed = chain-gated receipt) with relative
actions; review/ gains _section.yaml (one owners gate for the
directory) and a [record].yaml dynamic page - /review/<chain-hash>
shows a single proposal. Top-level files drop their now-derived id:
and fossil route: fields. URLs /develop-proposal and /proposed become
/develop/proposal and /develop/proposed (no automation references
them - n8n filters checked).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-08-24 22:32:01 +02:00
Bendik Aagaard LynghaugandClaude Sonnet 5 309e3b43df Voice: bold statements, argued alternatives, no questions below the title
Lint and reload / lint (push) Successful in 2s
Details
Lint and reload / reload (push) Successful in 0s
Details 
- The page title is the only question anywhere; alternative and
  feature names are now statements in our voice. Where we need input
  we say why (the reply is personal, software lands somewhere, a
  proposal is a stance), then hand over the field.
- The opening question's alternatives become the statements we'd like
  visitors to get behind: "Good software begins with a clear
  argument", "Attention is earned", "Capital needs reasons", "Work
  happens through dialogue, not tickets".
- followup: true on the five post-submission pages keeps them out of
  the question nav until the visitor actually carries a chain.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-08-12 23:26:10 +02:00
Bendik Aagaard Lynghaug e8f266e8f7 Drop the last "someone reads it" phrasing, match the "we" voice used elsewhere
Lint and reload / lint-and-reload (push) Successful in 3s
Details 
applied.yaml and index.yaml still described review in the passive
third person ("someone here will read this", "taken on by someone
who reads") after project.yaml and the rest of applied.yaml's own
features had already been reworked to a direct first-person "we"
voice centered on the visitor's value, not on the fact that a person
reads it.
 2026-08-06 22:06:44 +02:00
Bendik Aagaard LynghaugandClaude Sonnet 5 a9eaca6b78 Speak to the applicant's actual concern, not just the process
Lint and reload / lint-and-reload (push) Successful in 3s
Details 
"A person reads it" reassures about process (a human, not a bot) but
never answers what an applicant actually wants to know: does what I
specifically bring matter here? Rewrote to say that directly, and
named how it gets used once they're in - dialogue-centered
development, not a queue of pre-decided tasks.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
 2026-08-06 12:57:21 +02:00
Bendik Aagaard Lynghaug d8628dbd15 Rework copy voice, add /review, Kanidm-gated applicant review 
English URLs throughout; review.yaml adds a qualifies-gated question
listing applicants via the generic NATS-KV resource mechanism, with
Invite/Decline transitions. Content pass: concrete/positive phrasing
(no negation constructions), warmer inclusive tone, light puns in the
encouragement lines.
 2026-07-29 19:39:00 +02:00
Bendik Aagaard Lynghaug 5321f70540 Initial content: opener, project, subscribed, applied 2026-07-29 12:51:55 +02:00