GeezerVison

Summary

This cuts repository release 0.1.2. The branch already contains #104 (remove Dependabot, ruff 0.16.10) and #105 (plan status reconciliation) as real commits, so merging this PR with a merge commit merges all three, and GitHub marks #104 and #105 as merged. After merge, v0.1.2 gets tagged on the resulting master commit.

New commits on top:

1. llms.txt fix + regression test. The file listed 8 of 12 courses and pointed at a nonexistent courses/hands-on-with-openai-codex-cli/. It also recommended uv run pytest, which fails because pytest is in the dev extra (reproduced). The 4 missing course lines reuse each course's reviewed COURSE.md summary. The new tests/test_llms_txt.py fails on any listed path that doesn't exist and on any course that isn't listed (confirmed it fails on the old file).

2. README calls to action → /from-github. The route returns 200 and shows the "You came from the repository" page. Only the English README's two "continue on flypython.com" links change. The page has no Chinese version (/zh/from-github is 404), so the Chinese README keeps the site root; badges and nav stay on root. The rule is recorded in docs/REPO_TO_WEBSITE.md.

3. FP-414 evaluation, added as docs/repo-plan-0.0.4.md §9 (Chinese, per the plan convention). Conclusion: keep the single website-hosted Skill and don't package per-course skills. Running the reference validator skills-ref 0.1.1 against the live SKILL.md finds two spec violations, both website-side fixes:

   • Non-spec frontmatter fields version and updated.
   • name: flypython-challenges doesn't match its own install dir .claude/skills/flypython/.

   Its uv run python verify.py advice for pandas courses also contradicts the venv + pip install -r requirements.txt course setup. FP-332 and FP-335 in the 0.0.3 plan are now ticked.

4. Release 0.1.2.

   • pyproject.toml version bump.
   • CHANGELOG [Unreleased] cut into [0.1.2] - 2026-10-11.
   • Added the missing [0.1.1] - 2026-09-14 heading, which was never cut when v0.1.1 was tagged. The stray [Unreleased-0.0.4-phase-A] heading is folded under 0.1.1, where that work shipped.
   • README current-release lines and docs/REPO_TO_WEBSITE.md release status updated.

   It's a patch release because no data schema changed since v0.1.1 (content-manifest.json has checksum and version updates only), and verifier v2 is additive (progress --json kept).

Change type

• Catalog resource or classification
• Bilingual editorial content
• Catalog export or consumer contract
• Tests, tooling, or workflow
• Governance or documentation

Evidence and scope

• Related issue: none. Includes chore: remove Dependabot version updates and bump ruff to 0.16.10 #104 and docs: reconcile 0.0.3 TODOs and refresh 0.0.4 status header #105.
• Source or maintenance evidence: live curl checks of https://flypython.com/from-github, /zh/from-github, and /skills/flypython/SKILL.md; agentskills validate (skills-ref 0.1.1); the Agent Skills spec at agentskills.io/specification.
• Website consumer impact: none required. No schema or catalog changes; the website keeps its own pin. The Skill fixes from FP-414 belong in the website repository.
• Intentionally out of scope:
  • The agent-taught run-throughs pending in 9 course REVIEW.md files. They need a maintainer as the learner, inside each desktop tool (Claude Code, Codex app, Cursor, Kimi Code, ZCode, DeepSeek Harness); none of these are available to the agent.
  • Creating the v0.1.2 tag and GitHub Release, which happen after merge.

Validation

Run locally on this branch, with ruff 0.16.10 from the dev lock:

• make check passes: ruff, 141 pytest tests, validate_catalog.py, export_catalog.py --check --target both, render_readmes.py --check, build_content_manifest.py --check, verify_examples.py (5), verify_courses.py (12), verify_paths.py (2)
• make lock-check passes
• English and Chinese output remain consistent. The only README difference is the CTA target, explained above.
• No secrets, generated reports, local build output, or analytics IDs were committed

Permissions and review

• I have the right to submit this contribution.
• I retained third-party notices and did not relicense third-party material.
• Human reviewers wrote or verified all resource descriptions and classifications. The llms.txt course lines are copied from the reviewed COURSE.md summaries, not newly written.
• I read CONTRIBUTING.md and docs/CURATION_POLICY.md.