docs: who wend is for; client fetches from wend's archive; remi-proof in the merge step; Ubuntu VM tier

[TusanHomichi]

Requested by Peter · project thread

What this adds

Route: none, docs only (README.md, client/README.md, SPEC.md). A second-look review of #127 found four claims that don't match main, and Peter asked for a short pitch at the top.
New fixes: none
Claims issue: none

• README pitch (new, Peter asked for it): who wend is for (fleets of old servers on dead distros), "ELevate upgrades the OS, wend upgrades the server", and the routes that have passed the VM tier. It claims no install-type coverage and no EL UEFI, and it doesn't say config is carried (the C7/C8 routes save php.ini and httpd.conf changes rather than carry them).
• README + client/README: "the client needs no network beyond your distro's mirrors." Since archive (#19): wend walk reads the public archive by default #122, a --run walk also fetches by digest from https://archive.fieldmouseworks.com (client/src/fetch.rs:23, client/src/main.rs:499). Now says: cache, wend's archive, or the distro's mirrors, and anything that doesn't match its pin is refused.
• README loop step 6: "CI replays it on every box." That contradicts the README's own VM-tier paragraph and tools/affected.py: CI replays only the routes a change touches. The step also skipped remi-proof (ci: remi-proof status blocks harness PRs until remi has proven their exact head #125). Now it names both, and the line is wrapped at 120 like the rest of the file.
• README layout: added .github/workflows/remi-proof.yml, which docs(readme): list the five routes, their evidence, and what the VM tier proves #127 left out because ci: remi-proof status blocks harness PRs until remi has proven their exact head #125 landed right before it.
• SPEC.md Ubuntu: said the VM tier "can't build or boot an Ubuntu box yet". adapters/ubuntu.toml has releases.trusty.install (BIOS and UEFI) and kernel_newest, and all three boxes passed on UEFI (wend#13, hardware: Ubuntu routes boot on UEFI as on BIOS #84).

Still stale, not touched here: the meta.note of routes/el/centos7-to-alma10.toml and routes/el/centos8-to-alma10.toml says "no real-VM proof yet", but centos7-lamp and centos8-lamp have both passed the VM tier (wend#13, #92). Editing a route file triggers a replay, so that belongs in the next PR that touches those routes.

Model

none: hand-written

Evidence

python3 wend check: ok. Docs only, so nothing replays.

Self-review (AGENTS.md step 5)

• Every precondition is as narrow as I can make it, and ./wend verify found no decoy hits (n/a: no fixes)
• Every fix fixes the real problem, not the symptom a check inspects (n/a)
• One problem per fix; load-bearing steps (like repair) kept (n/a)
• No edits to tools/, adapters/, SPEC.md, .github/, other boxes' roles, or other people's fixes. This PR edits two lines of SPEC.md (a stale fact).
• Commits are signed off (git commit -s)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_01Hh5yaH7we3yBbKFaaYak2R

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-16T15:34:29.222239Z	dc77ff0	New commits

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: acfd565eda

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: dc77ff07d1

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[TusanHomichi]

Claude review: signed off on head dc77ff07d1cd5195daa95575a0ca64867ca7795f.

This PR is docs only (README.md, client/README.md, SPEC.md). Nothing replays and no rule or check changes. I checked each claim against main:

• The archive is the client's default for --run walks: client/src/fetch.rs:23, client/src/main.rs:499.
• --live walks are unverified: client/src/main.rs usage text.
• The Ubuntu VM tier exists: adapters/ubuntu.toml has releases.trusty.install, kernel_newest and boot = ["bios", "uefi"].
• CI replays only affected routes: tools/affected.py and gate.yml's plan.
• remi-proof.yml exists.
• The pitch's routes match the VM-tier list already in the README (wend#13, hardware: Ubuntu routes boot on UEFI as on BIOS #84, route: el centos8 -> alma10 #92). The pitch doesn't claim config is carried, install-type coverage, or EL UEFI.

Both Codex threads are answered and resolved.

---

Generated by Claude Code

[TusanHomichi]

Claude review: signed off on head e63cfb7bb0725bb8583a624b9639b8ac426df3ca.

The only change since dc77ff0 is the README pitch, which Peter asked to make distro-neutral (it no longer names ELevate). Its claims are a subset of the ones checked in the sign-off above: services and data carried and checked each hop, and VM-tier passes for the five routes. Everything else in that sign-off still holds.

---

Generated by Claude Code