A real report, written by 145 · Breadcrumb Audit, run against this repo — dogfood output, committed unedited. This is the artifact every brief ends in: findings that cite their evidence, ranked by severity, with a fix sketch each.
2026-07-10 · Produced by brief 145 · Breadcrumb Audit, run against this repo (goal-prompts, v0.14). Part of the sample-report gallery.
First run — no previous report to diff against. This run landed immediately after the 0.14.0 breadcrumb pass (CLAUDE.md ↔ README cross-links, the reports/ taxonomy class, the stated two-hop rule), so the headline gaps that motivated the brief are already closed; what follows is the residue.
Entry files found: CLAUDE.md (agent), README.md (human), CONTRIBUTING.md (contributor) — all three exist and CLAUDE.md now names the other two; README links back. From CLAUDE.md, hop 1 names every command, every source file, the design layer (HARNESS_PLAN.md, DECISIONS.md, FABLE_BUILD_QUEUE.md, specs/, template/), the js/ modules with their test suites, and the generated-output list; hop 2 (via template/README.md, HARNESS_PLAN.md, README.md) covers the individual specs, the template harness internals, docs/usage-metrics.md, and .claude-plugin/marketplace.json. Roughly 95% of the repo's docs, scripts, and tooling are reachable in two hops. The far side — reachable only by directory listing or buried code comment — is six files, itemized below.
vercel.json is named by no entry doc. Deployment behavior (buildCommand, cleanUrls, the redirect that keeps old report URLs alive, cache headers) is discoverable only by spotting the file. README documents CI (.github/workflows/ci.yml) but not the deploy config beside it.build.py fails without an og/<id>.png share card for every brief and fails when README's "<N> mission briefs" count drifts — but CONTRIBUTING step 1 says only "front matter + body (see README)." A contributor learns both rules from build failures, and the failure for the og card doesn't say the fix is python3 scripts/og.py <id> (needs Pillow, which the stdlib-only pitch says you don't need). Enforced-but-unwritten, the exact inverse of the house style.manifest.json — the hand-authored PWA manifest (committed in 0.4, hand-edited since), but it appears in neither of CLAUDE.md's classes. An agent can't tell from the taxonomy whether editing it is safe or futile — the exact ambiguity the two lists exist to remove. Verdict: classify (add to "Edit these").vitals.html — a source page like studio.html, but absent from "Edit these"; its only CLAUDE.md mention is inside the design-tokens parenthetical. Verdict: classify.examples/index.html — the hand-authored report gallery; nothing in CLAUDE.md's taxonomy covers examples/, and it points into reports/ so it must move in step when reports do (this pass proved it). Verdict: classify.metrics.json + scripts/refresh-stars.py — an out-of-band-refreshed asset and the script that writes it; their only breadcrumb is a comment at build.py:1294. Same species as img/studio.png (ungated asset with a refresh command), which does get a CLAUDE.md note. Verdict: classify alongside it.vercel.json — see above. Verdict: link from README's develop/CI section.fonts/ — self-hosted font assets, unmentioned anywhere; referenced only by generated CSS and the vercel cache header. Deliberately internal rather than lost. Verdict: flag only, no action.vitals.html, examples/ (gallery, points into reports/), manifest.json, and a metrics.json/refresh-stars.py note. Four lines, closes every taxonomy hole. Effort S.python3 scripts/og.py <id> (Pillow needed) and bump README's brief count. Effort S.vercel.json as the deploy config, beside the existing CI sentence. Effort S.Report only — which breadcrumbs should be laid first?