Withdraw the PR-triggered coverage workflow (RFC 0004, second half)

[TimothyHan]

Why

Released too soon in 0.9.0. One demo repository is not enough evidence to put a bot on other teams' pull requests. This removes the feature from main; RFC 0004 stays as the record with status Withdrawn for the workflow half.

Removed

• .github/workflows/qa-buddy-pr.yml and .github/qa-buddy-pr/ (prompts, renderer, installer, MCP config, README)
• bin/pr-coverage.js — touched, heatmap, comment, merge, preflight, init, summary, issues — and its test.js block (suite 1874 → 1715)
• /qa-setup 0.6.0: the PR-automation step (Phase 5b), --pr, and the three fixtures that tested them, in both locales
• docs/pr-coverage.md, docs/pr-coverage-en.md, the README section and nav link in both locales

Kept, on purpose

• Headless mode — the preamble section, --headless, and the claude -p runner. The RFC 0005 eval bench runs on it; .github/workflows/skill-eval.yml is untouched.
• KB spec §6.8 sources.json and §6.9 exploratory/{date}.md — reworded for their remaining readers (the eval bench grades §6.9). §6.8 now says no shipped tool consumes it since 0.10.0 and the shape is kept for the next consumer.
• /qa-test-cases 0.6.3 — self-check 8 named "the PR heatmap"; it now names every reader. The artifacts-parse rubric statement matches.
• The v0.9.0 / v0.9.1 tags. Callers pinned to them keep working; nothing on main runs on a PR any more.

Gate

eval.js scope says RUN for test-cases (self-check 8's text changed, and artifacts-parse cites it) — the A/B is running and its table will be added here. It also says RUN for exploratory because KB spec §6.9 changed one sentence naming the consumer; I have not run that one: nothing the exploratory rubric cites changed, and the sentence renames a reader. If you want it before merging: node bin/eval.js ab exploratory --a origin/main --b remove/pr-coverage.

Related

• PR pr-coverage: bug status, finding resolution, feature-scoped bugs, TC id collisions — reader and writer contracts #89 (pr-coverage bug status, finding resolution, feature-scoped bugs, TC id collisions) is now mostly about deleted code. Recommend closing it; its writer-side contracts (bug **Status:** line, finding **Status:** re-check, per-feature TC numbering) are still sound hygiene and can come back as a small skills-only PR without the pipeline wording if you want them.
• The demo repository's caller workflow and qa:* labels are yours to remove; they will keep working against the pinned tag until then.
• CHANGELOG carries this under Removed in both locales; the next release is a minor bump (0.10.0).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code