Gate on the documentation still describing the code

[melbinjp]

Adds a check that the documentation still describes the code: paths, CLI flags the parser really defines, importable names, the declared Python floor, install extras.

A claim is called broken only when history shows the project had the thing and removed it. So a tutorial path or an illustration is a skip with a reason, not a false alarm.

What it says on this repo today:

ok paths: 64 checked, 53 skipped
ok cli-flags: 47 checked
ok versions: 1 checked

Nothing contradicted. 112 claims checked, 53 not judged.

fetch-depth: 0 is not optional, and the action refuses without it. Measured on pallets/click: a full clone reports 1 broken and exits 1, while the same repository at --depth 1 reports Nothing contradicted and exits 0. Since actions/checkout gives depth 1 by default, the quiet version of this check is a permanently green gate that judged nothing.

[github-actions]

Jules Review

COVERAGE: a4aedb7 1 files

Summary

This pull request adds a new GitHub Actions workflow, docs-check.yml, which runs melbinjp/docproof to verify that the documentation claims match the actual code in the repository. The workflow runs on pushes and pull requests to main and properly configures fetch-depth: 0 to allow the action to inspect historical states. The configuration is sound and fulfills its intended purpose.

Findings

[WARN]

.github/workflows/docs-check.yml, line 36 - The melbinjp/docproof action is referenced using the @main branch. Since other actions in this repository (such as actions/checkout@v7 in this file, as well as others in ci.yml) use version bounds, adding a dependency with no upper bound at all introduces the risk of unexpected breakages if backwards-incompatible changes are pushed to docproof. Consider pinning this to a specific release tag or commit SHA.

Verdict

VERDICT: comment

---

This review never edits code or force-blocks a merge. No blocking issues were found, so this PR was auto-approved.

[github-actions]

Automated approval: Jules found no blocking issues (verdict: comment). See the review comment above.