fix(docs): fix 72 broken links/anchors against the assembled site tree

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ docs/                              # repo-level documentation
 evals/                            # eval fixtures and harnesses (not shipped)
 ```
 
-Edit plugin components directly under `plugins/<plugin>/` (agents, skills, hooks, knowledge, templates, docs). See [`plugins/dev-team/CLAUDE.md`](plugins/dev-team/CLAUDE.md) for the orchestration pipeline.
+Edit plugin components directly under `plugins/<plugin>/` (agents, skills, hooks, knowledge, templates, docs). See [`plugins/dev-team/CLAUDE.md`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/CLAUDE.md) for the orchestration pipeline.
 
 ## Local development
 
@@ -104,4 +104,4 @@ The docs use three diagram formats, each for a distinct purpose — match the co
 
 ## Releasing
 
-Releases are managed by [release-please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please): push [conventional commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/) to `main` and merge the release PR it opens. The full rules — the version-bump mapping, why every commit that lands on `main` must be conventional under rebase-merge, and how to recover a missed release with a `Release-As:` footer — are in [`CLAUDE.md`](CLAUDE.md#releasing).
+Releases are managed by [release-please](https://github.com/googleapis/release-please): push [conventional commits](https://www.conventionalcommits.org/) to `main` and merge the release PR it opens. The full rules — the version-bump mapping, why every commit that lands on `main` must be conventional under rebase-merge, and how to recover a missed release with a `Release-As:` footer — are in [`CLAUDE.md`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/CLAUDE.md#releasing).

GETTING-STARTED.md

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ On this page:
 - [Key Concepts](#key-concepts)
 - [How to Use It](#how-to-use-it)
 - [Common Workflows](#common-workflows)
-- [Diagnostic & Audit Workflows](#diagnostic--audit-workflows)
+- [Diagnostic & Audit Workflows](#diagnostic-audit-workflows)
 - [Available Agents and Skills](#available-agents-and-skills)
 - [Rules to Know](#rules-to-know)
 

README.md

@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ Every `git commit` is automatically gated by `/code-review`. A `PreToolUse` hook
 
 Developing, testing, or releasing the plugins? See **[CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md)** — local-dev setup (including live installs via symlinks), the `/agent-eval` and `/agent-audit` test commands, the security comparative-testing harness, how to add agents and skills, and the release process.
 
-**`/code-review` benchmark harness** ([`evals/code-review-benchmark/`](evals/code-review-benchmark/README.md)): checks out real, known-defect commits from Defects4J (Java) and BugsJS (JavaScript), runs `/code-review` against the buggy revision, and scores whether its findings actually cover the real defect — with a dedicated Missed Defects report. Adapters and scoring are unit-tested against real fetched dataset samples; a live sweep against the actual corpora requires a local Defects4J/BugsJS install (see the harness README for prerequisites and usage).
+**`/code-review` benchmark harness** ([`evals/code-review-benchmark/`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/evals/code-review-benchmark/README.md)): checks out real, known-defect commits from Defects4J (Java) and BugsJS (JavaScript), runs `/code-review` against the buggy revision, and scores whether its findings actually cover the real defect — with a dedicated Missed Defects report. Adapters and scoring are unit-tested against real fetched dataset samples; a live sweep against the actual corpora requires a local Defects4J/BugsJS install (see the harness README for prerequisites and usage).
 
 ## Documentation
 
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ Start here:
 | --- | --- |
 | [Getting Started](GETTING-STARTED.md) | Install, the workflow, suggested skills, worked examples |
 | [Contributing](CONTRIBUTING.md) | Local development, testing, adding agents/skills, releasing |
-| [Plugin Development Guide](CLAUDE.md) | Project North Star, repo structure, working rules |
+| [Plugin Development Guide](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/CLAUDE.md) | Project North Star, repo structure, working rules |
 
 Per-plugin docs: **[dev-team](plugins/dev-team/README.md)** · **[security-assessment](plugins/security-assessment/README.md)** · **[marketplace-dev](plugins/marketplace-dev/README.md)** — each plugin's README is the entry point to its architecture, commands, and deeper guides.
 

docs/adr/0022-reject-delegation-only-sweep-dispatch.md

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ The experiment ran on 2026-07-18: 3 arms (solo session / released plugin
 10.12.0 / treatment branch) × 3 task classes (one-file fix, 4-file feature
 slice, 26-file review sweep) × 5 interleaved reps, 45/45 runs completed at
 matched external acceptance checks. Evidence:
-[`reports/orchestration-benchmark-2026-07-18.md`](../../reports/orchestration-benchmark-2026-07-18.md)
+[`reports/orchestration-benchmark-2026-07-18.md`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/reports/orchestration-benchmark-2026-07-18.md)
 (raw per-run data alongside).
 
 Measured, per class (median cost per run; quality = acceptance passes):

docs/cloud-setup.md

@@ -53,11 +53,11 @@ fi
 exit 0
 ```
 
-[`.claude/cloud-setup.sh`](../.claude/cloud-setup.sh) is the actual work:
+[`.claude/cloud-setup.sh`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/.claude/cloud-setup.sh) is the actual work:
 this repo's test/gate toolchain (`jq`, `shellcheck`, the Python dev deps, `gh`,
 `uv`, `mutmut`, `adr`), Node 24+ plus `npm ci` for the git hooks
 (`pre-commit`, `pre-push`, `commit-msg`), the plugin install/refresh, and a
-closing [`scripts/verify_toolchain.py`](../scripts/verify_toolchain.py) pass.
+closing [`scripts/verify_toolchain.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/verify_toolchain.py) pass.
 It **refreshes** the plugin (re-pulls the catalog and `plugin update`) rather
 than only installing — `plugin install` is a no-op once a version is cached, and
 the reused snapshot would otherwise pin the first version forever (see
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ The Setup script must `exit 0` even when provisioning went wrong, so it can only
 *report* a broken toolchain — it can never refuse to hand one over. Two things
 close that gap:
 
-- [`scripts/verify_toolchain.py`](../scripts/verify_toolchain.py) — runs every
+- [`scripts/verify_toolchain.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/verify_toolchain.py) — runs every
   tool instead of probing `PATH`, so an installed-but-unstartable tool fails
   instead of passing. The Setup script calls it at the end; run it yourself any
   time with `python3 scripts/verify_toolchain.py`.
@@ -128,15 +128,15 @@ The fix has three layers, all wired into `.claude/cloud-setup.sh` and the
   bfinster` and `claude plugin update dev-team@bfinster` on every invocation, and
   the SessionStart hook no longer no-ops when a version is already present.
 - **Enable marketplace auto-update.** Both call the plugin's own
-  [`skills/upgrade/scripts/enable_autoupdate.py`](../plugins/dev-team/skills/upgrade/scripts/enable_autoupdate.py)
+  [`skills/upgrade/scripts/enable_autoupdate.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/skills/upgrade/scripts/enable_autoupdate.py)
   (`--enable`), which sets `extraKnownMarketplaces.bfinster.autoUpdate: true` in
   the config `settings.json` — the same flag the `/plugin` UI and `/upgrade`
   toggle. This is the key lever: it makes the CLI re-pull and upgrade **at launch,
   within the existing snapshot**, so a routine release lands without a snapshot
   rebuild. `/upgrade` runs the very same script (its `--check`/`--enable` modes),
   so there is one implementation of the flag, not two.
 - **Drift advisory.** Both also run the plugin's
-  [`skills/upgrade/scripts/check_version_drift.py`](../plugins/dev-team/skills/upgrade/scripts/check_version_drift.py),
+  [`skills/upgrade/scripts/check_version_drift.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/skills/upgrade/scripts/check_version_drift.py),
   which compares the installed version against the refreshed catalog and surfaces
   a "v{installed} → v{latest}; restart or run `/upgrade`" advisory. This is the
   safety net for the one case the refresh can't fix silently: a **restrictive

docs/cloud-startup-prompt.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Cloud startup prompt
 
-The Setup script ([`.claude/cloud-setup.sh`](../.claude/cloud-setup.sh)) provisions
+The Setup script ([`.claude/cloud-setup.sh`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/.claude/cloud-setup.sh)) provisions
 the machine. This is the other half: the **first message** to send in a fresh
 cloud session, so Claude confirms the environment is actually sound before it
 starts changing code.
@@ -78,14 +78,14 @@ or a `SessionStart` hook. Two caveats if you do:
 - A `SessionStart` hook runs *after* Claude boots, so it cannot fix the
   plugin-loading problem in step 3 — that one genuinely needs the Setup script.
 - Keep it fail-open and time-boxed, like the hooks already registered in
-  [`.claude/settings.json`](../.claude/settings.json). A verification step that
+  [`.claude/settings.json`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/.claude/settings.json). A verification step that
   hangs session startup is worse than the drift it was guarding against.
 
 ## See also
 
 - [`cloud-setup.md`](cloud-setup.md) — the Setup script itself, plugin freshness,
   and the snapshot/caching behavior that pins stale plugin versions.
-- [`.claude/cloud-setup.sh`](../.claude/cloud-setup.sh) — what to paste into
+- [`.claude/cloud-setup.sh`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/.claude/cloud-setup.sh) — what to paste into
   claude.ai/code → Environment → Setup script.
-- [`scripts/verify_toolchain.py`](../scripts/verify_toolchain.py) — the verifier,
+- [`scripts/verify_toolchain.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/verify_toolchain.py) — the verifier,
   runnable on its own at any time (`--quiet` for failures only, `--json` to script it).

docs/context-and-session-economy-playbook.md

@@ -20,11 +20,11 @@ answers on its own:
 
 | Question | Use |
 | --- | --- |
-| How much did *that run* cost? | [`/cost-report`](../plugins/dev-team/skills/cost-report/SKILL.md) |
-| How did *that run* go, step by step? | [`/run-report`](../plugins/dev-team/skills/run-report/SKILL.md) |
-| What should we change, based on recent sessions? | [`/session-review`](../plugins/dev-team/skills/session-review/SKILL.md) |
-| Which agents/routing have gone stale? | [`/harness-audit`](../plugins/dev-team/skills/harness-audit/SKILL.md) |
-| Which skills and agents are unused? | [`/artifact-lifecycle`](../plugins/dev-team/skills/artifact-lifecycle/SKILL.md) |
+| How much did *that run* cost? | [`/cost-report`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/skills/cost-report/SKILL.md) |
+| How did *that run* go, step by step? | [`/run-report`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/skills/run-report/SKILL.md) |
+| What should we change, based on recent sessions? | [`/session-review`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/skills/session-review/SKILL.md) |
+| Which agents/routing have gone stale? | [`/harness-audit`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/skills/harness-audit/SKILL.md) |
+| Which skills and agents are unused? | [`/artifact-lifecycle`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/skills/artifact-lifecycle/SKILL.md) |
 | Is the context ceiling in the right place *right now*? | [`context_ceiling_report.py`](context-ceiling-validation.md) |
 
 This playbook is the **longitudinal** layer over those: run them in a fixed

docs/context-ceiling-validation.md

@@ -130,11 +130,11 @@ fail is worse than no gate* rule applied to the measurement itself.
 Every policy decision — which tools are gated, which skills are exempt, how a
 model maps to a window, how occupancy is summed, what counts as a sidechain
 row — is **imported** from
-[`plugins/dev-team/hooks/context_ceiling_guard.py`](../plugins/dev-team/hooks/context_ceiling_guard.py)
+[`plugins/dev-team/hooks/context_ceiling_guard.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/hooks/context_ceiling_guard.py)
 rather than restated. A validator that measured the ceiling even slightly
 differently from the guard would be validating a threshold nobody ships.
 
-[`tests/scripts/test_context_ceiling_report.py`](../tests/scripts/test_context_ceiling_report.py)
+[`tests/scripts/test_context_ceiling_report.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/tests/scripts/test_context_ceiling_report.py)
 additionally pins the report's occupancy walk against the hook's own
 `_measure_occupancy` on shared fixtures, in the same spirit as the hook
 suite's utilization-formula equality test.

docs/experiments/01-final-results.md

@@ -6,8 +6,8 @@
 **Design + prior results:** [`01-experiment-prompt-3sizes-3arms.md`](agentic-workflow-evidence/01-experiment-prompt-3sizes-3arms.md),
 `tdd-vs-test-after-experiment.md`,
 `tdd-vs-test-after-consolidated-report.md` (prior campaign; not migrated into this docs set)
-**Runner:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](../../scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py)
-**Analyzer:** [`scripts/analyze_tdd_experiment.py`](../../scripts/analyze_tdd_experiment.py)
+**Runner:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py)
+**Analyzer:** [`scripts/analyze_tdd_experiment.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/analyze_tdd_experiment.py)
 **Raw data:** [`agentic-workflow-evidence/data/3sizes-small-sonnet-2026-06-22.jsonl`](agentic-workflow-evidence/data/3sizes-small-sonnet-2026-06-22.jsonl) (small),
 [`agentic-workflow-evidence/data/tdd-largetask-sonnet-2026-06-21.json`](agentic-workflow-evidence/data/tdd-largetask-sonnet-2026-06-21.json) (medium, folded in),
 [`agentic-workflow-evidence/data/3sizes-large-sonnet-2026-06-22.jsonl`](agentic-workflow-evidence/data/3sizes-large-sonnet-2026-06-22.jsonl) (large),

docs/experiments/02-final-results.md

@@ -647,7 +647,7 @@ step is taken seriously.
 
 *Report generated by `claude-sonnet-4-6` in a remote Claude Code session.*  
 *Raw data: [`docs/experiments/agentic-workflow-evidence/data/`](agentic-workflow-evidence/data/)*  
-*Analysis script: [`scripts/analyze_tdd_pays.py`](../../scripts/analyze_tdd_pays.py)*
+*Analysis script: [`scripts/analyze_tdd_pays.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/analyze_tdd_pays.py)*
 
 ---
 

docs/experiments/05-final-results.md

@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@ refactor-cadence/workflow-matrix experiment line (experiments 01–05); see
 
 **Data:** [`agentic-workflow-evidence/data/refactor-workflow-matrix.jsonl`](agentic-workflow-evidence/data/refactor-workflow-matrix.jsonl)
 **Model:** `claude-sonnet-4-6` (held fixed across all arms)
-**Harness:** [`scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py`](../../scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py),
-orchestrated by [`scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py`](../../scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py)
+**Harness:** [`scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py),
+orchestrated by [`scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py)
 
 ---
 

docs/experiments/RECOMMENDATIONS.md

@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ against this repo's own tasks or harness (this harness's runs are
 clean-room `claude -p` dispatches with no plugin loaded either, so neither
 side of the comparison is controlled on agent configuration — the gap is
 the corpus and harness, not "our agents vs. theirs"). See
-[`../../plugins/dev-team/knowledge/test-cadence-tradeoffs.md`](../../plugins/dev-team/knowledge/test-cadence-tradeoffs.md)
+[`../../plugins/dev-team/knowledge/test-cadence-tradeoffs.md`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/plugins/dev-team/knowledge/test-cadence-tradeoffs.md)
 for the decision rule and what a local replication would require before this
 recommendation changes.
 

docs/experiments/agentic-workflow-evidence/01-experiment-prompt-3sizes-3arms.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Experiment Prompt: Build-Pipeline vs. TDD vs. Non-TDD across Small / Medium / Large Tasks
 
 **Type:** Reusable experiment prompt (hand this whole file to Claude to execute)
-**Harness:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](../../../scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py)
+**Harness:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py)
 **Design + prior results:** `tdd-vs-test-after-experiment.md`,
 `tdd-vs-test-after-consolidated-report.md` (prior campaign; not migrated into this docs set)
 

docs/experiments/agentic-workflow-evidence/02-experiment-prompt-when-tdd-pays.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Experiment Prompt: When Does TDD Actually Pay Off?
 
 **Type:** Reusable experiment prompt (hand this whole file to Claude to execute)
-**Harness:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](../../../scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py) — **must be extended** (see "Extend the harness")
+**Harness:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py) — **must be extended** (see "Extend the harness")
 **Motivation:** [`FAQ.md` Q1](../FAQ.md),
 [`01-final-results.md`](../01-final-results.md)
 **Prior run results:** [`02-final-results.md`](../02-final-results.md)

docs/experiments/agentic-workflow-evidence/04-experiment-prompt-refactor-granularity.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Experiment Prompt: Refactoring Granularity, the Test Safety Net, and Code/Test Authorship
 
 **Type:** Reusable experiment prompt (hand this whole file to Claude to execute)
-**Harness:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](../../../scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py) — **must be extended** (see "Extend the harness")
+**Harness:** [`scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_tdd_experiment.py) — **must be extended** (see "Extend the harness")
 **Design + prior results:** [`02-final-results.md` § refactoring-cadence follow-up](../02-final-results.md#proposed-follow-up-refactoring-cadence-and-the-test-safety-net)
 
 This run resolves the open question from the *When Does TDD Pay Off?* study: the two
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ real **5%** difference from scatter, and it pulls apart the candidate mechanisms
 It judges every arm on three axes — **how modular and changeable the code is**, **how good
 the tests are**, and **what that quality cost** — and reports quality both raw and
 per-dollar, so the verdict names the efficient frontier rather than the most expensive arm.
-The three axes and their sensors are defined in [What we measure](#what-we-measure--three-axes-define-these-before-running).
+The three axes and their sensors are defined in [What we measure](#what-we-measure-three-axes-define-these-before-running).
 
 ---
 

docs/experiments/agentic-workflow-evidence/05-experiment-prompt-workflow-matrix.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 # Experiment Prompt: Which agentic workflow yields maintainable, well-tested code at minimum cost
 
 **Type:** Reusable experiment prompt (hand this whole file to Claude to execute)
-**Harness:** [`scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py`](../../../scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py)
+**Harness:** [`scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_refactor_experiment.py)
 **Lineage:** the single, consolidated experiment for the refactor-cadence line. It supersedes
 the earlier granularity / larger-corpus designs (former prompts 06 and the cadence-larger
 prompt), fixes the variables they left open (refactoring on, specs clear), and re-scopes
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ variance before funding it. It is **not** part of the base run.
 2. **1-task cost pilot** on the new arms (`--task fare --arm all-tests-first-single --arm
    all-tests-first-split --trials 1`) to get real per-cell cost.
 3. **Campaign:** one command —
-   [`scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py`](../../../scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py). It runs the 7 arms
+   [`scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py`](https://github.com/bdfinst/agentic-dev-team/blob/main/scripts/run_workflow_matrix.py). It runs the 7 arms
    × 4 tasks × 6 base trials, then **sequentially extends** only the arms whose cost-efficiency
    (quality-per-dollar) rank is still ambiguous, up to a 12-trial ceiling. Defaults to a **dry
    plan** (no dispatch); pass `--go` to run, `--analyze-only` to print the efficiency frontier