docs: drop "forge" jargon for concrete Gitea wording
test / unit (pull_request) Successful in 33s
test / integration (pull_request) Successful in 42s

We use Gitea, not an abstract forge. Reword the docs added in this
branch: "forge thread" -> "Gitea thread", and the research note's
generic "forge" -> "Gitea" / "hosting provider" as context demands,
keeping its portability argument coherent.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
2026-05-28 22:53:53 -04:00
parent 82f0b22caa
commit 5871dbf24a
4 changed files with 21 additions and 21 deletions
+1 -1
View File
@@ -37,6 +37,6 @@ In practice most notes share a loose shape:
Keep the reasoning self-contained and grounded: cite sources, link
files and PRDs, and prefer concrete evidence from this repo over
generic claims — a note should stand on its own without a chat log or a
forge thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the
Gitea thread. When a note's recommendation gets acted on, capture the
resulting decision in a PRD or a decision record; the note stays as the
"why we looked into it," not the system of record for the choice.