aceengineer-website-copy-alignment

name	aceengineer-website-copy-alignment
description	Verify proposed copy changes to vamseeachanta/aceengineer-website against canonical sources in workspace-hub (llm-wiki, live site, strategy repo) before shipping. Produces a GitHub issue on the site repo documenting the check with a Match / Drift / Gap verdict.
version	1.0.0
author	Codex
license	MIT
metadata	{"tags":["aceengineer","website","copy-review","canonical-check","design-system","cross-repo"],"related_skills":["llm-wiki-roadmap-integration","knowledge-source-recon","llm-wiki-ecosystem-gap-to-issues","ecosystem-terminology"]}

AceEngineer Website Copy Alignment

Use when

• A&CE Design System project (separate Codex.ai project) hands off a copy review and defers the canonical check to Codex because it cannot reach workspace-hub.
• About to ship lede / hero / capability / service-line / firm-description text changes to aceengineer-website.
• User says things like: "check the About page against llm-wiki", "does this copy match our canonical phrasing?", "before we ship this to aceengineer.com verify it against workspace-hub".

Do NOT run this on every aceengineer-website commit — scope is copy/marketing/firm-positioning text only. Build-system, JS, CSS, asset changes do not need this skill.

Canonical source map

The canonical source for site copy is NOT llm-wiki — that is the #1 trap from the 2026-04-24 handoff that surfaced this skill. Consult sources in this priority order:

Priority	Source	Path	What lives here	Privacy
1	Live about.html / engineering.html / services.html	aceengineer-website/content/*.html and repo-root *.html	Shipped firm framing, positioning lines, capability headings, schema.org descriptions — already public.	Public.
2	aceengineer-strategy positioning docs	aceengineer-strategy/strategy/{positioning,go-to-market,ideal-customer,competitors,pricing-model}.md	True canonical firm positioning, forbidden phrases, target headlines, credential claims.	PRIVATE — do not quote verbatim in public issues. See Privacy Wall below.
3	llm-wiki curated pages	knowledge/wikis/{engineering,marine-engineering,naval-architecture,maritime-law}/wiki/	Methodology, domain concepts, standards. Explicitly out of scope for firm copy per engineering/wiki/overview.md.	Public (git-tracked).
4	llm-wiki raw papers	knowledge/wikis/engineering/raw/papers/	Drafts, synthesis notes, strategy write-ups. Sometimes has recent positioning language before it lands in aceengineer-strategy.	Public — but review carefully, some docs are intended as internal.
5	Tier-1 repo READMEs	{assetutilities,digitalmodel,worldenergydata,assethold,OGManufacturing}/README.md	Package capability descriptions — useful when copy mentions specific modules.	Public.

Resolve the llm-wiki data root programmatically:

python3 scripts/data/llm-wiki/resolve_wiki_path.py

Resolution order: $LLM_WIKI_DATA_DIR → config/llm-wiki.yaml:data_dir → data/llm-wiki → fallback knowledge/wikis.

No embedded llm-wiki in tier-1 repos

Per the 2026-04-23 decision (GH #2398 CLOSED — llm-wiki stays embedded in hub), none of assetutilities / digitalmodel / worldenergydata / assethold / OGManufacturing / aceengineer-website contain an llm-wiki/ subtree. If you find one, that is news and the decision may have been reversed — re-read .Codex/memory/project_llm_wiki_stays_embedded.md before proceeding.

Privacy Wall

The aceengineer-strategy repo's agent-config enforces a privacy wall (see that repo's .Codex/ directory for the authoritative policy):

• No cross-references to public engineering repos
• No PII in commits (contact details, deal terms, pricing specifics)

When filing the public issue on vamseeachanta/aceengineer-website:

Safe to cite publicly	Must NOT appear in the public issue
Live site copy (it's already public)	Revenue targets, ARR numbers, retainer pricing
Schema.org / meta / OG tag content	Prospect names, target account lists
Public tier-1 repo READMEs	WRK-NNN identifiers from aceengineer-strategy
Public GitHub issue numbers	Direct quotes from aceengineer-strategy/strategy/*.md
Paraphrased positioning rules (e.g. "firm, not consultancy")	Quoted positioning text verbatim

Rule of thumb: if it's not already visible on aceengineer.com or in a public repo, don't reproduce it. Derive the rule, cite the live-site evidence.

Steps

1. Load context.

   • Read .Codex/memory/MEMORY.md for recent aceengineer-related entries.
   • Read the handoff / design-review notes the user pasted (the proposed copy + surrounding context).
   • cd /mnt/local-analysis/workspace-hub && git status — verify clean state.

2. Identify what is being changed. Classify the copy by type:

   • Firm description / lede (who we are) → priority sources: 1, 2
   • Service lines / capability titles → priority sources: 1 (engineering.html), 2 (positioning.md)
   • Domain/technical descriptions → priority sources: 1, 3 (llm-wiki IS in scope here)
   • Credentials / numbers → priority sources: 1 (schema.org), 2 (positioning.md Core Differentiation table), 5 (tier-1 READMEs for module counts)

3. Search canonical sources in priority order. Typical commands:

   # Public sources first
   grep -E '<meta name="description"|"description":' /mnt/local-analysis/workspace-hub/aceengineer-website/{about,index,services,engineering,contact,faq}.html 2>/dev/null
   grep -E 'class="(section-title|lead|hero)' /mnt/local-analysis/workspace-hub/aceengineer-website/*.html
   
   # Private strategy (read for context, don't quote in public issue)
   grep -rli -E '<keywords>' /mnt/local-analysis/workspace-hub/aceengineer-strategy/strategy/
   
   # llm-wiki (likely a miss for firm copy, but scan domain-related claims)
   cd /mnt/local-analysis/workspace-hub/knowledge/wikis && grep -rli -E '<keyword>' .
   
   # Tier-1 READMEs
   grep -l -E '<module claim>' /mnt/local-analysis/workspace-hub/{assetutilities,digitalmodel,worldenergydata,assethold,OGManufacturing}/README.md
   

4. Classify the verdict. Exactly one of:

   • A — MATCH: proposed copy aligns with priority-1/2 canonical sources. No change needed. Issue is "verified, no action".
   • B — DRIFT: canonical source(s) say something different or better. Capture the diff in a table so the design-system session can patch on the next pass.

Issue template

## Source

Flagged during <source-context> (<YYYY-MM-DD>). <Who deferred to Codex and why>.

## Proposed copy (under review)

> <paste proposed copy verbatim>

## llm-wiki (workspace-hub) check

- **Path checked:** <paths>
- **Tier-1 repos scanned:** assetutilities, digitalmodel, worldenergydata, assethold, OGManufacturing, plus aceengineer-website. <presence/absence of llm-wiki in each>
- **Verdict:** **<A/B/C>**. <One-paragraph rationale citing `knowledge/wikis/engineering/wiki/overview.md` scope lock if relevant.>

## Cross-check against <the-actual-canonical-source>

<Table: dimension | canonical says | proposed says | conflict?>

## Recommendation

<Numbered list, 2-5 items>

## Files affected

<List — do NOT include proposed edits here, this issue documents the check only>

## Done when

- <testable acceptance criteria>
- Cross-referenced in design-system HANDOFF.md exit notes

---
_Verification trail: <file:line citations to public sources only>._

Pitfalls

Rationalization	Reality
"llm-wiki is the obvious canonical source for firm copy."	It is not. knowledge/wikis/engineering/wiki/overview.md locks scope to methodology. Firm copy lives in aceengineer-strategy (private) and the live site itself.
"I'll just quote positioning.md in the issue for completeness."	Privacy wall breach. Paraphrase the rule, cite live-site evidence that embodies it.
"No canonical match means just ship the proposed copy."	No — verdict C means the canonical source should be decided and (optionally) created first. Shipping without a canonical source is what creates future drift.
"Proposed and live copy use different words but probably mean the same thing."	The live about.html contains explicit negative constraints (e.g. "We deliver automated workflows, not consulting hours" and "AceEngineer is the firm … not a contractor with a laptop"). Treat explicit negatives in live copy as hard canonical rules; any synonym that lands on the forbidden side (e.g. "consulting practice") is a drift, not a rephrasing.
"I should file the issue AND fix the copy in the same PR."	No. Review-and-file only. The design-system session owns the edit. Mixing roles means a broken design-system exit note and a stale canonical-check paper trail.
"Labels content / design-system already exist — skip the create step."	They didn't on 2026-04-24. gh label create is idempotent when guarded with 2>/dev/null; run it unconditionally.
"A match is boring; no issue needed."	File it anyway. A recorded "verified, no action" closes the loop so the next design-system session doesn't re-request the same check.

Iron Law

Every copy change targeting aceengineer-website that originates from the A&CE Design System project exits through a filed issue on vamseeachanta/aceengineer-website tagged content,design-system, with an explicit Match / Drift / Gap verdict grounded in at least one priority-1 (live-site) citation.

Example execution (2026-04-24)

• Trigger: design-system about.html lede review, handoff from separate Codex.ai project.
• Proposed lede introduced "consulting practice" framing.
• Live about.html already rejected that framing ("We deliver automated workflows, not consulting hours"; "AceEngineer is the firm ... not a contractor with a laptop").
• Verdict: B+C (DRIFT against live site + GAP in llm-wiki).
• Outcome: issue filed at vamseeachanta/aceengineer-website#6.