feat(content): rewrite the public blog corpus

[drewstone]

What changed

• Rewrites all 85 public blog posts in place for readers with no prior Tangle context.
• Replaces thread-like fragments with complete technical narratives, worked examples, failure cases, decisions, and public sources.
• Defines Tangle-specific concepts before use and separates payment, execution, evidence, attestation, evaluation, and result quality.
• Removes repository archaeology, private paths, ritual FAQ wrappers, unsupported claims, and repetitive AI cadence.
• Gives the copy checker a dedicated technical-blog rubric, the complete rendered article, readable table boundaries, and Luna as the company-router default.
• Corrects the blog-proof skill so it matches the site: the page currently emits Article metadata, not FAQ metadata.

Scale

• 85 of 85 posts rewritten
• 211,305 prose words, up from 117,519
• 1,941-word minimum; 2,468-word median; 3,402-word maximum
• 289 code blocks across 58 posts
• 902 public external links and 275 internal links
• At least one code example or table in every post

Review

• 14 parallel Luna Max writing passes
• 14 independent Luna Max editing passes
• 1 whole-corpus Luna Max reconciliation
• Full rendered-page Luna review: 85 of 85 passed, weighted average 7.98/10

Verification

• pnpm check:blog: 85 posts, 13 series, 0 errors, 0 warnings
• Blog proof checker: 85 of 85 passed, 0 warnings
• Reader audit: 0 must-rewrite posts, 0 hard failures, 0 style flags, 85 of 85 search targets covered
• Private-material scan: 0 local paths, commit hashes, or author-side repository commands
• GitHub sources: every cited repository except the explicitly fictional example URL is public
• pnpm build: passed
• pnpm check:links: 121 pages, 722 links, 0 broken
• Merge simulation against origin/master: clean

Rendered article

[tangletools]

✅ Auto-approved drewstone PR — 0777aa0f

This PR was opened by the trusted drewstone account.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: drewstone_author · 2026-08-04T07:38:47Z}

[tangletools]

⚠️ Review Interrupted — 0777aa0f

The review runner stopped before publishing a final verdict: webhook_restarted.

State	Detail
Interrupted	webhook restarted

No review verdict was produced for this run. Trigger a fresh review on the current PR head if the PR is still open.

_{tangletools · #63 · model: kimi-for-coding · updated 2026-08-04T07:51:20Z}

[drewstone]

@tangletools review now

[tangletools]

⚪ Value Audit — audit-incomplete

Verdict	audit-incomplete
Concerns	2 (2 low)
Heuristic	1.2s
Duplication	0.0s
Interrogation	90.0s (2 bridge agents)
Total	91.2s

💰 Value — error

value agent produced no parseable value-audit JSON.

• Model: opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro
• Bridge attempts: 3
• Bridge error: opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7: Bridge returned 503: {"error":{"message":"cli-bridge admission timed out after 30000ms","type":"admission_rejected","reason":"queue_timeout","admission":{"active":20,"queued":3,"maxActive":20,"maxQueue":48}}}; opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2: Bridge returned 503: {"error":{"message":"cli-bridge admission timed out after 30000ms","type":"admission_rejected","reason":

🎯 Usefulness — error

usefulness agent produced no parseable value-audit JSON.

• Model: opencode/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro
• Bridge attempts: 3
• Bridge error: opencode/zai-coding-plan/glm-5.2: Bridge returned 503: {"error":{"message":"cli-bridge admission timed out after 30000ms","type":"admission_rejected","reason":"queue_timeout","admission":{"active":20,"queued":2,"maxActive":20,"maxQueue":48}}}; opencode/kimi-for-coding/k2p7: Bridge returned 503: {"error":{"message":"cli-bridge admission timed out after 30000ms","type":"admission_rejected","reason":

🔎 Heuristic Signals

🟡 Cruft: console debug added src/content/blog/ai-accountant-complex-tax-returns.mdx

+console.log(claim)

🟡 Cruft: magic number added src/content/blog/ai-agent-sandbox.mdx

• timeoutMs: 10 * 60 * 1000,

---

What this audit checks

It judges the change on its merits — not whether it was tasked out in an issue. Unticketed, fast-moving work is fine; the question is whether the change is good and whether a better or existing approach should be used instead.

Pass	What it asks
Heuristic	Vague title? Whitespace-only or cruft-bearing diff? (content signals only)
Duplication	Do added function/class names already exist elsewhere in the repo?
Value Audit	What does it do? What goal does it achieve? Is it good? Better architecture or already-exists?
Usefulness Audit	Does it integrate and fit? Will it hold up in real use and actually get used?

Findings are concerns, not blocks — the human reviewer decides what to do with them.

_{value-audit · 20260804T075431Z}

[tangletools]

✅ Refreshed approval after new commits — 32ffb9df

A previous trusted approval on this PR was invalidated by new commits.
The full PR reviewer audit still runs separately and will publish findings if it detects issues.

_{tangletools · auto-approval · reason: stale_approval_refresh · 2026-08-04T08:02:44Z}