Review lecturer CSV report and compare with weblinkchecker

[dcasota]

Task Description

Human review of lecturer-generated report compared to existing weblinkchecker.sh output.

Actions

1. Review report-<datetime>.csv from lecturer
2. Review report-<datetime>.csv from weblinkchecker.sh
3. Compare coverage:
   • Are all orphan links detected by both?
   • Does lecturer find additional issues (grammar, markdown)?
   • Are categorizations accurate?

Decision Points

• Is lecturer detection comprehensive enough to supplement/replace weblinkchecker?
• Are quality metrics accurate?
• Should we proceed with crawler integration?

Acceptance Criteria

• ✅ Reports compared
• ✅ Coverage gaps identified (if any)
• ✅ Decision made on integration approach
• ✅ Move to "in backlog" if approved, "won't fix" if rejected

Related

• Integration Analysis: Immediate Actions Docs Maintenance: Fix 59% of broken links and add analysis tools #3
• Prerequisites: "Test photonos-docs-lecturer in analyze mode"

Labels

lecturer-integration, review, decision-needed, high