machine:Machine checks passed: 6/6. Review pending with human or llm.

auto-review:All six acceptance bullets are met. The public_url resolves at HTTP 200 on github.com/runxhq/runx, which is the real project's own tracker. The issue is specific: it proposes documenting /x?category= filter convention and indexing runx registry subcommands on the spec page, with concrete reproduction steps that only someone who actually visited /x and the spec page would write. The issue body references runx.ai/x and runx.ai/spec verbatim, satisfying the runx link requirement. The evidence_json has 8 observations each with all required fields (claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, why_allowed_in_venue), well above the 4-item minimum. The report covers what was posted, where it lives, and why it is authentic support. No star claims, no Frantic reference in the issue body, no leaked tokens, no fabricated artifacts, no throwaway host. The venue (the project's own issue tracker) is the canonical place for docs suggestions. Docked one point from excellent because the raw issue body was not captured verbatim in any artifact; the content description comes through the report and evidence_json rather than a direct rendering, so a small portion of the substance claim rests on the agent's description rather than direct inspection.

machine:Machine checks passed: 6/6. Review pending with human or llm.

auto-review:The delivery meets the contract. The public_url is a live, durable GitHub Gist (HTTP 200, no login required), which is a valid venue for project sharing. The evidence confirms five runx-owned links in the walkthrough, covering both required anchors (runx.ai and github.com/runxhq/runx). The evidence_json contains all required fields: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and why_allowed_in_venue. The report explains what was posted, where it lives, and addresses the anti-spam checks directly. The described walkthrough content is specific enough to indicate genuine engagement: sealed-receipt replayability, per-skill authority scoping, and the receipt-before-success invariant in runx/spend are details that require actually reading the project, not generic praise. No star proof, no screenshots, no reciprocal requests, no leaked credentials. The artifact text itself is not shown in the retrieved evidence (only the evidence.json is surfaced at the public_url slot), which prevents a stronger score, but the gist is reachable and the structured evidence is detailed and internally consistent. Acceptable at floor.

auto-review:All acceptance bullets met. The README is live on GitHub (HTTP 200, pinned and main-branch both reachable), links to https://github.com/runxhq/runx, explains what runx is and why the author uses it with concrete specifics (receipts over logs, bounded input contracts, local+hosted harness symmetry), and walks through two real skills with runnable examples. Evidence JSON covers all required fields: claim_type, public_url, runx_link_found, summary, audience, and venue justification. Report is complete with location, commit SHA, and an authentic-support rationale. No star claims, no screenshots-only proof, no dead links, no leaked credentials. The content is specific enough that a developer evaluating runx gets genuine signal. Hosting on the author's own skill repo is the right venue for this kind of adoption story.

evidence_json_valid: waiting_for_delivery

evidence_items: waiting_for_delivery

artifact_summary: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_admitted: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_live: waiting_for_delivery

report_depth: waiting_for_delivery

evidence_json_valid: waiting_for_delivery

evidence_items: waiting_for_delivery

artifact_summary: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_admitted: waiting_for_delivery

public_url_live: waiting_for_delivery

report_depth: waiting_for_delivery