Make the public repository canonical for the Context Layer site - #2
Conversation
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: e2c9eb1a91
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| Context Layer is an experimental protocol draft. Focused review of invariants, object contracts, fixtures, threat boundaries, and failure behavior is welcome. Contributions must follow the software and documentation license boundary in `LICENSING.md`. | ||
|
|
||
| This repository accepts protocol, reference-runtime, local-core, and proof artifacts. Website application, hosting, and deployment source are intentionally maintained elsewhere and should not be added to this repository. | ||
| This repository accepts protocol, reference-runtime, local-core, proof, and public-documentation changes. The canonical published Context Layer site belongs in `site/context-layer/`; unrelated Sierra Catalina website source does not. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
By bringing the canonical website source into this repository, this now contradicts LICENSING.md, which still says website application, hosting, and deployment source live elsewhere and explicitly assigns no license to that material. Because contributors are directed to that file for the controlling boundary, the new HTML, CSS, JavaScript, images, and deployment configuration have an unclear grant; update LICENSING.md to classify the new site/ paths as part of this change.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| for (const [route, file] of routes) { | ||
| assert.equal(rewrites.get(route), `/${file}`); | ||
| await access(join(site, file)); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When an authoritative file under protocol/schemas/, protocol/reference/, protocol/fixtures/, or protocol/spec/ changes, this test still passes because it checks only that the independently copied site files exist. The commit publishes byte-for-byte duplicates under site/context-layer/implementation, source, and reference, so a normal protocol update can silently leave the deployed schemas, runtime, fixtures, and specification stale; compare these copies against their authoritative counterparts or generate them from protocol/.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
What changed
site/context-layer/Verification
npm run lintnpm run release:hygienenpm test(80 tests)Preview: https://context-layer-public-jwsk821hf-sierra-beyondai-projects.vercel.app/context-layer