wahidyankf README Fixing Quality
Overview
readme-fixer never trusts checker findings blindly — every finding is re-validated before a
fix is applied, and fixes apply only to objective, verifiable issues. Subjective quality
assessments (tone, engagement, emoji placement) are always flagged for manual review, never
auto-fixed.
Reference Modules
- domain-confidence-examples.md — README-specific HIGH / MEDIUM / FALSE_POSITIVE examples
- high-confidence-validation-checks.md — the four objective checks (paragraph length, jargon pattern, acronym context, passive voice) with exact bash re-validation patterns
- medium-confidence-and-safeguards.md — the four subjective categories that always get flagged, plus refusal conditions, required output, and convergence safeguards
Core Principles
- Re-validation is mandatory — never skip it, a file may have changed since the audit.
- Objective issues only auto-fix — line counts and pattern matches are objective; tone and engagement are not.
- Use the EXACT SAME patterns as
readme-checker— consistency between checker and fixer is critical; a mismatch indicates a checker issue, not a fixer judgment call. - Report everything — fixed, skipped, and flagged decisions all belong in the fix report for audit trail and checker-improvement feedback.
Related Skills
repo-assessing-criticality-confidence (universal confidence system this specializes),
repo-applying-maker-checker-fixer (the fixer workflow shape), readme-writing-readme-files
(the quality standard being fixed toward).