@nerviq/cli 1.0.0 → 1.2.0

package/content/launch-posts.md

@@ -1,226 +0,0 @@
-# Launch Posts — Proof-Backed Distribution Assets
-
-**Status:** Complete — every asset below is anchored in measured proof, a canonical artifact, or a verified runtime surface  
-**Date:** 2026-04-03
-
-## Shared Proof Anchors
-
-Use these links as the canonical sources behind public claims:
-
-- Proof artifact index: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
-- CLAUDEX self-dogfood trace: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/claudex-self-dogfood-proof-trace-2026-04-03.md
-- VTCLE case study: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-vtcle-2026-04-03.md
-- Social case study: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-social-2026-04-03.md
-- Polymiro case study: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-polymiro-2026-04-03.md
-- Public proof metrics source: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/claudex-proof-metrics-source-2026-04-03.md
-
-Measured-result boundary to preserve:
-
-- before/after scores were measured with `claudex-setup@1.10.3` on `2026-04-03`
-- current npm latest is `1.16.1`
-- current product surface is `85 checks`
-
-## Post 1: Reddit r/ClaudeAI
-
-**Title:** I built a CLI that audits your Claude Code setup — 85 checks, measured on 4 real repos
-
-**Body:**
-I built a zero-dependency CLI that audits how well a repo is set up for Claude Code.
-
-It checks `85` things across `CLAUDE.md`, hooks, commands, agents, skills, MCP config, permissions, diagrams, and verification loops.
-
-Measured on `2026-04-03` with `claudex-setup@1.10.3`:
-- CLAUDEX: `62 -> 90`
-- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
-- Social: `40 -> 48`
-- Polymiro: `35 -> 48`
-
-```bash
-npx claudex-setup
-```
-
-It starts trust-first:
-- audit first
-- plan / suggest-only before writes
-- apply only what you approve
-- rollback artifacts for every applied batch
-
-Zero dependencies. No API keys. Runs local.
-
-GitHub: https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex-setup
-
-Proof and case studies:
-- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
-- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-vtcle-2026-04-03.md
-- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-social-2026-04-03.md
-- https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-polymiro-2026-04-03.md
-
-Would love feedback on what checks or rollout surfaces are still missing.
-
-**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + 3 external case studies + current proof source
-
----
-
-## Post 2: Reddit r/ChatGPTCoding
-
-**Title:** Most Claude Code repos are missing the safety layer, not the model
-
-**Body:**
-The interesting problem with Claude Code is not "can it write code?".
-It's "is the repo actually set up so Claude can work safely and predictably?".
-
-I built `claudex-setup` to audit that surface:
-- `85` checks
-- zero dependencies
-- local-only by default
-- trust-first flow: audit -> plan -> apply -> rollback
-
-Measured on 4 real repos:
-- FastAPI repo: `46 -> 64`
-- React Native repo: `40 -> 48`
-- Python/Docker repo: `35 -> 48`
-- research engine repo: `62 -> 90`
-
-```bash
-npx claudex-setup
-```
-
-The most common misses were not exotic:
-- no deny rules
-- no secrets protection
-- no mermaid architecture
-- no hooks registered in settings
-
-Proof:
-https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
-
-**Evidence anchor:** measured before/after traces + common gap summary from public proof set
-
----
-
-## Post 3: Dev.to Article
-
-**Title:** What 4 Real Repos Taught Me About Claude Code Readiness
-
-**Body (excerpt):**
-I tested `claudex-setup` on 4 real repos and the pattern was clear:
-
-- the best teams still miss permission deny rules
-- mature repos often have hooks in files but not actually registered
-- non-standard settings formats are a real adoption trap
-- shared `settings.json` matters more than personal local overrides
-
-Measured on `2026-04-03` with `claudex-setup@1.10.3`:
-- CLAUDEX: `62 -> 90`
-- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
-- Social: `40 -> 48`
-- Polymiro: `35 -> 48`
-
-The product today is strongest as:
-
-`audit -> plan -> safe apply -> governance -> benchmark`
-
-Not a code generator. Not an MCP installer. A trust layer for Claude Code repos.
-
-Proof packet:
-https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
-
-**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + case-study docs + current proof source
-
----
-
-## Post 4: Twitter/X Thread
-
-**Tweet 1:**
-I built a zero-dependency CLI that audits Claude Code readiness across `85` checks.
-
-Measured on 4 real repos:
-- `62 -> 90`
-- `46 -> 64`
-- `40 -> 48`
-- `35 -> 48`
-
-`npx claudex-setup`
-
-Proof: github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
-
-**Tweet 2:**
-The most common misses were boring and important:
-- no deny rules
-- no secrets protection
-- no mermaid diagram
-- no hooks registered in settings
-
-It is much more "trust layer" than "AI magic".
-
-**Tweet 3:**
-What it does well today:
-- audit first
-- suggest / plan before writes
-- apply selectively
-- emit rollback artifacts
-- benchmark on isolated copy
-
-**Tweet 4:**
-Best result so far:
-- CLAUDEX self-dogfood: `62 -> 90`
-
-Best external proof:
-- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
-
-Case studies:
-- github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-vtcle-2026-04-03.md
-- github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-social-2026-04-03.md
-- github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/case-study-polymiro-2026-04-03.md
-
-**Tweet 5:**
-Measured results were captured on `claudex-setup@1.10.3` on `2026-04-03`.
-Current npm latest is `1.16.1`, so exact scores can move slightly, but the proof packet is explicit about that boundary.
-
-**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + per-repo traces
-
----
-
-## Post 5: Hacker News (Show HN)
-
-**Title:** Show HN: claudex-setup — audit Claude Code readiness with 85 checks
-
-**Body:**
-I built a CLI that audits how well a repo is set up for Claude Code.
-
-This is not a code-quality linter and not an MCP installer.
-It focuses on Claude workflow quality:
-- `CLAUDE.md`
-- hooks
-- commands
-- agents
-- skills
-- MCP config
-- permissions / deny rules
-- diagrams
-- verification loops
-
-Core workflow:
-- `npx claudex-setup`
-- `npx claudex-setup suggest-only`
-- `npx claudex-setup plan`
-- `npx claudex-setup apply`
-- `npx claudex-setup benchmark`
-
-Measured on 4 real repos on `2026-04-03` with `claudex-setup@1.10.3`:
-- CLAUDEX: `62 -> 90`
-- VTCLE: `46 -> 64`
-- Social: `40 -> 48`
-- Polymiro: `35 -> 48`
-
-Trust decisions that mattered:
-- zero dependencies
-- audit before write
-- rollback artifacts
-- cross-platform Node hooks
-- explicit proof packets instead of vague claims
-
-Proof packet:
-https://github.com/DnaFin/claudex/blob/main/research/proof-artifacts/README.md
-
-**Evidence anchor:** proof artifact index + current npm proof source

package/content/pilot-rollout-kit.md

@@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
-# Pilot Rollout Kit
-
-## Suggested pilot shape
-
-1. Choose 1-2 repos with active owners and low blast radius.
-2. Run `discover`, `suggest-only`, and `governance` before any write flow.
-3. Pick one permission profile and document why it fits the pilot.
-4. Run `benchmark` to capture a baseline and expected value.
-5. Use `plan` and selective `apply` for the first write batch.
-
-## Approval checklist
-
-- Engineering owner approves scope.
-- Security owner approves permission profile and hooks.
-- Pilot owner records success metrics.
-- Rollback expectations are documented before apply.
-
-## Success metrics
-
-- readiness score delta
-- organic score delta
-- number of proposal bundles accepted
-- rollback-free apply rate
-- time to first useful Claude workflow
-
-## Rollback expectations
-
-- every apply run must produce a rollback artifact
-- rejected starter artifacts are deleted using the rollback manifest
-- rollback decisions are logged in the activity trail

package/content/release-checklist.md

@@ -1,31 +0,0 @@
-# claudex-setup Release Checklist
-
-Use this before tagging or publishing a release.
-
-## Code And Packaging
-
-- bump `package.json` version intentionally
-- update `CHANGELOG.md` with the shipped changes
-- run `npm test`
-- run `npm pack --dry-run`
-
-## Product Surface Consistency
-
-- verify `README.md` reflects the current CLI surface
-- verify `docs/index.html` reflects the current CLI surface
-- verify new flags and commands appear in `--help`
-- verify proof numbers and public claims match the current state
-
-## Trust And Governance
-
-- run `npx claudex-setup --snapshot` on the repo itself
-- run `npx claudex-setup governance --out governance.md`
-- verify MCP package names and env preflight behavior for changed packs
-- verify no recommendation regressions on known scenarios
-
-## Release Readiness
-
-- confirm npm publish target and account are correct
-- confirm git branch / commit matches the intended release
-- confirm any new templates or content files are included in the package
-- capture one final note about what changed and what still remains intentionally deferred