Add meta/ directory with JSON metadata for each tool

[simonw]

• Created docs_to_json.py script to convert *.docs.md files to JSON
• Each tool now has a meta/.json file with description and commit hash
• Updated build_colophon.py, gather_links.py, build_by_month.py to read from meta/ JSON files
• Updated write_docs.py to also generate meta/ JSON files when creating docs

haiku.json intentionally omitted to test rebuild capability

[claude]

Claude finished @simonw's task —— View job

---

Code Review: Add meta/ directory with JSON metadata for each tool

Review Tasks:

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md) - No repo-specific guidelines found
• Analyze new docs_to_json.py script
• Review changes to existing Python scripts
• Examine sample JSON metadata files
• Check for code quality and best practices
• Look for potential bugs or issues
• Assess performance considerations
• Evaluate security concerns
• Check test coverage
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

📋 Overall Assessment

This PR introduces a well-structured metadata system that converts existing documentation to JSON format. The implementation is clean, follows good Python practices, and maintains backward compatibility. The approach of separating metadata from content is architecturally sound.

✅ Strengths

Code Quality & Architecture:

• Clear separation of concerns with dedicated docs_to_json.py script
• Consistent error handling patterns across all modified files
• Good use of type hints in newer code (build_by_month.py:16, build_by_month.py:34)
• Proper encoding specification (utf-8) throughout
• Clean function decomposition with single-responsibility functions

Security:

• No security concerns identified
• Proper file path handling using Path objects
• No shell injection vulnerabilities
• Safe JSON parsing with exception handling

Performance:

• Efficient file operations using pathlib.Path
• JSON caching approach should improve performance vs parsing markdown repeatedly
• Memory-efficient processing (files processed one at a time)

⚠️ Areas for Improvement

1. Code Duplication (docs_to_json.py:9-36 vs write_docs.py:54-82)
The extract_description() function is duplicated between files. Consider creating a shared utilities module:

# utils.py
def extract_description_from_content(content: str) -> str:
    """Extract the first paragraph (description) from docs content."""
    # ... implementation

2. Error Handling Inconsistencies

• build_colophon.py:277: Generic exception catching should be more specific
• gather_links.py:78: Silent failures could mask important issues
• Consider logging errors instead of printing to stdout

3. Missing Validation

• docs_to_json.py: No validation that extracted descriptions are non-empty
• JSON structure validation is missing (what if commit hash is invalid?)
• No validation of file permissions before writing

4. Test Coverage Gap
The new functionality lacks test coverage. Consider adding:

• Unit tests for extract_description() and extract_commit()
• Integration tests for JSON file generation
• Tests for error conditions (corrupted files, missing permissions)

🔍 Specific Code Issues

Minor Issues:

1. docs_to_json.py:66: Variable slug could be more descriptive (tool_slug)
2. build_by_month.py:40: Unnecessary import json inside function
3. gather_links.py:138-154: Complex nested logic could be simplified

Potential Bug:
build_colophon.py:265-278: If meta file exists but JSON is invalid, the tool continues without the description. Consider providing a fallback or warning.

🧪 Test Coverage Assessment

The PR lacks test coverage for the new functionality. Existing tests (test_*.py) don't cover:

• JSON metadata generation
• Description extraction logic
• Error handling in new code paths

Recommendation: Add tests for at least the core docs_to_json.py functions.

✨ Positive Implementation Details

1. Intentional haiku.json omission is a smart testing approach
2. Markdown processing integration in build_colophon.py:273 is well-implemented
3. Backwards compatibility maintained - old functionality still works if JSON files are missing
4. Consistent JSON formatting with 2-space indentation and trailing newlines

📝 Final Recommendation

APPROVE - This is a solid implementation that enhances the project's metadata capabilities. The code is well-written and the architecture is sound. While there are minor improvements to be made (especially around code duplication and test coverage), none of the issues are blocking.

The PR successfully achieves its goal of creating a JSON metadata system while maintaining existing functionality. The intentional test case (missing haiku.json) demonstrates good testing practices.

Suggested follow-up actions:

1. Create shared utilities module to reduce code duplication
2. Add unit tests for new functionality
3. Consider more specific exception handling in error-prone areas