docs: add oracle-axi to the community catalog

.github/workflows/docs-check.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+name: docs-check
+
+on:
+  push:
+    branches: [main]
+    paths:
+      - catalog.yaml
+      - principles.yaml
+      - README.md
+      - docs/index.html
+      - .agents/skills/axi/SKILL.md
+      - scripts/**
+      - .prettierrc
+      - package.json
+      - pnpm-lock.yaml
+      - .github/workflows/docs-check.yml
+  pull_request:
+    branches: [main]
+    paths:
+      - catalog.yaml
+      - principles.yaml
+      - README.md
+      - docs/index.html
+      - .agents/skills/axi/SKILL.md
+      - scripts/**
+      - .prettierrc
+      - package.json
+      - pnpm-lock.yaml
+      - .github/workflows/docs-check.yml
+
+jobs:
+  drift:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
+
+      - uses: pnpm/action-setup@v4
+
+      - uses: actions/setup-node@v6
+        with:
+          node-version: 24
+          cache: pnpm
+
+      - run: pnpm install --frozen-lockfile
+      - run: pnpm run docs:test
+      - run: pnpm run docs:check

.gitignore

@@ -25,3 +25,9 @@ docs/social/rendered/
 .DS_Store
 
 .gnhf/runs/
+
+# Playwright MCP session artifacts
+.playwright-mcp/
+
+# npm lock file (this project uses pnpm)
+package-lock.json

.no-mistakes/evidence/fm/agmd-axi-g1/agents-md-governance-verification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+# AGENTS.md self-governance verification
+
+Validated target commit `de7bffd1b9b0263d8a1dd94e6858826623d09605` against base `2fa0f2e9c06cd8baa43a02e1fc257d41f24815e7`.
+
+The root `CLAUDE.md` agent entry point is a symlink to `AGENTS.md`.
+
+The target adds only `AGENTS.md`.
+
+The base did not include this heading.
+
+The target includes it exactly once, as the final block:
+
+```markdown
+## Maintaining this file
+
+Keep this file for knowledge useful to almost every future agent session in this project.
+Do not repeat what the codebase already shows; point to the authoritative file or command instead.
+Prefer rewriting or pruning existing entries over appending new ones.
+When updating this file, preserve this bar for all agents and keep entries concise.
+```
+
+The verification checked the single occurrence, byte-for-byte final block, append-only scope, and the agent entry-point symlink.

.no-mistakes/evidence/fm/axi-catalog-verification-vision-v1/catalog-policy-scenario-verification.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+# AXI catalog policy scenario verification
+
+Tested target: `64f3c4b6fe5bdc70fa3098917e19d3a1e5db0d69`
+
+This artifact exercises the changed `VISION.md` as a generic catalog reviewer would use it. A positive verdict means the policy permits admission. It does not mean admission is automatic.
+
+## End-user decision scenarios
+
+| Proposal evidence available to the reviewer | Catalog | Expected verdict from `VISION.md` | Policy reason |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Reviewer independently inspects source at pinned revision `abc123`, identifies the relevant entrypoint and output/error paths, and runs released package `1.2.3` through representative success, invalid-input error, no-results, and `--help` discovery paths. Direct observations cover every applicable AXI principle. | Community | Positive verdict is permitted | Independent pinned-source inspection, released-package execution, representative behavior, and exact provenance are all present. |
+| Same evidence as above, for a package selected by the project owner. | Official | Positive verdict is permitted for the owner-maintained catalog | The evidence bar applies to either catalog, while the official catalog remains maintained directly by the project owner and closed to contributed edits. |
+| Contributor supplies claims, pasted success/error transcripts, a generated diff, package metadata, and proof that the package name exists, but the reviewer cannot inspect source. | Community | Inconclusive or request source evidence | Contributor-provided verification and existence/metadata checks are insufficient on their own, and required independent source inspection is unavailable. |
+| Reviewer inspects a pinned source revision, but a runnable release exists and the reviewer does not execute it. | Either | Inconclusive or request execution evidence | A runnable release requires representative released-package success, error, and discovery execution. |
+| Reviewer independently inspects pinned source for a package with no runnable release and records the relevant files, entrypoint, and observable interface behavior across every applicable principle. | Either | Positive verdict can be considered without package execution | Execution is conditional on a runnable release existing; pinned source inspection and applicable-principle evidence remain mandatory. |
+| Reviewer executes a local contributor checkout or unreleased build and labels the results as behavior of release `2.0.0`. | Either | Inconclusive or corrected evidence request | The policy forbids attributing observations to a release or revision that was not inspected and requires the exact released version when execution applies. |
+| Independent source and released-package checks cover AXI-facing behavior, but do not audit unrelated dependency licensing or business risks. | Either | AXI admission review can proceed | Review is explicitly proportional to applicable AXI behavior and need not exhaustively audit unrelated package concerns. |
+| A proposal was already open when the policy changed, but only contributor claims and metadata are currently present. | Community | Inconclusive until the new evidence bar is met | The policy says every new package proposal may receive a positive verdict only after the required review. It contains no grandfathering exception. |
+
+## Acceptance-criteria trace
+
+- Both catalogs: "Every new package proposed for either catalog".
+- Independent pinned source: reviewer "must inspect the actual source at a pinned revision or release".
+- Released behavior: when runnable, reviewer executes representative "success, error, and discovery paths".
+- Complete AXI scope: observations must satisfy "all applicable AXI principles".
+- Exact provenance: verdict identifies the pinned revision/release, relevant files or code paths, released version, and exercised behavior.
+- Insufficient evidence: contributor claims, pasted verification, generated diffs, metadata, and existence checks do not suffice by themselves.
+- Fail closed: unavailable required inspection yields an inconclusive verdict or evidence request.
+- Ownership: official catalog remains maintained directly by the project owner and closed to contributed additions or edits.
+- Proportionality: unrelated exhaustive auditing is not required.
+- Self-contained scope: the policy names no Wheelhouse or downstream implementation.
+
+## Pending-proposal compatibility check
+
+At test time, the open community catalog proposals included PRs #79, #93, #98, #99, #101, #102, #104, and #105. The policy text itself applies the evidence bar to every new proposal without grandfathering. However, there is no PR for branch `fm/axi-catalog-verification-vision-v1`, so the required PR-level explanation of how pending proposals should be handled cannot yet be verified.