Skip to content

feat: kind: repo-entity page type for wiki_lint.py#5

Closed
purisev wants to merge 1 commit into
praneybehl:mainfrom
purisev:feat/repo-entity-page-kind
Closed

feat: kind: repo-entity page type for wiki_lint.py#5
purisev wants to merge 1 commit into
praneybehl:mainfrom
purisev:feat/repo-entity-page-kind

Conversation

@purisev

@purisev purisev commented Jul 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Implements #3.

Adds an opt-in kind: repo-entity page marker for inventory-anchor pages
(e.g. a stub page per git repo listing origin/web_url/description) that are
by design cited only from index.md and carry no other content.

  • Orphan check exempts pages with kind: repo-entity (index-only citation
    is the accepted shape for this kind).
  • Frontmatter check uses a reduced required set for these pages
    (kind,type,name,origin,web_url,description) instead of the standard
    type,title,tags,created,updated.
  • Both behaviors are configurable/disableable via --repo-entity-required-fm
    and --no-repo-entity-exemption, and are backward compatible — a wiki
    with no kind: repo-entity pages sees no change in output.

Smoke-tested: a kind: repo-entity page with no inbound wikilinks and only
kind/type/name/origin/web_url/description in frontmatter produces zero
findings by default, and reappears under --no-repo-entity-exemption /
a stricter --repo-entity-required-fm.

Signed-off-by: Iurii Purisev <92510590+purisev@users.noreply.github.com>
@praneybehl

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks for putting this together. I’m closing this PR rather than merging it into v2.

V2 relies on title, tags, and updated for retrieval, filtering, and freshness, while this change intentionally removes those fields from the required page shape. It also does not implement the equivalent Paperclip lint behavior. In the v2 graph, type: entity, kind: repo-entity has no matching ontology mapping and therefore falls through to the default concept node type, which would misclassify repository pages.

The underlying use case is still not concrete enough to justify a special schema exception. If repository inventory becomes a supported workflow, I would prefer to model repositories as standard entity pages—likely kind: repository—while preserving normal frontmatter and adding an ontology mapping, documentation, cross-runtime parity, and tests.

Thank you for exploring the idea and for following the issue-first contribution process.

@praneybehl praneybehl closed this Jul 20, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants