Best possible solution:

Land only after maintainers confirm the intended owner/consumer and all embedded scorecard references either resolve in the approved location or are removed from the public snapshot.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Not applicable; this PR adds docs data rather than reporting a runtime bug. The review issues are source-reproducible by following the added YAML references against current main.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No; adding the two public YAML snapshots is not yet the best solution while their support references are dangling and the intended consumer/location is unconfirmed. The safer path is a maintainer-approved location with self-consistent references.

Full review comments:

• [P2] Restore or remove the omitted scorecard support refs — docs/taxonomy.yaml:46
  The new snapshot keeps completeness_instructions and category_note pointers into the scorecard support tree, but this PR only adds the two YAML files and current main no longer has the referenced maturity-scorecard support files after the revert. Any consumer that follows those fields cannot inspect the evidence, so include the support files in the approved location or remove/normalize these pointers.
  Confidence: 0.9
• [P2] Point skill-format at an existing docs page — docs/taxonomy.yaml:2938
  This entry points ClawHub publishing evidence at docs/clawhub/skill-format.md, but that page is not present in current main; the skill authoring docs live under docs/tools. Consumers following the taxonomy docs list will hit a dead path unless this is changed to an existing page or the missing page is added.
  Confidence: 0.93
• [P2] Remove the missing security-audits docs reference — docs/taxonomy.yaml:3006
  The Compatibility and Trust section links to docs/clawhub/security-audits.md, but no such file exists under docs/. Because these docs entries are evidence links for the taxonomy, this should point at the actual trust/audit page or be removed until that page exists.
  Confidence: 0.93

Overall correctness: patch is incorrect
Overall confidence: 0.89

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against 6c4fb997e52e.

Label changes:

• add P2: This is a normal-priority docs/data PR with merge-blocking data-quality and ownership questions but no runtime outage or security incident.
• add merge-risk: 🚨 other: Merging would introduce public docs data with unresolved embedded evidence paths and an unsettled placement decision that CI alone does not settle.
• add rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🧂 unranked krab.
• add status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. Not applicable: Real behavior proof is not required because this PR only changes files under docs/.
• remove rating: 🦐 gold shrimp: Current PR rating is rating: 🧂 unranked krab, so this older rating label is no longer current.
• remove status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: Current PR status label is status: ⏳ waiting on author.

Label justifications:

• P2: This is a normal-priority docs/data PR with merge-blocking data-quality and ownership questions but no runtime outage or security incident.
• merge-risk: 🚨 other: Merging would introduce public docs data with unresolved embedded evidence paths and an unsettled placement decision that CI alone does not settle.
• rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🧂 unranked krab.
• status: ⏳ waiting on author: ClawSweeper has contributor-facing work open and is waiting for author action. Not applicable: Real behavior proof is not required because this PR only changes files under docs/.

PR surface:

Docs +13829. Total +13829 across 2 files.

What I checked:

• Root repository policy read: Root AGENTS.md was read fully and applied; it requires protected maintainer-label handling, full PR review, and docs/source/current-main evidence before verdicts. (AGENTS.md:1, 6c4fb997e52e)
• Docs policy read: Docs AGENTS.md says repo-local internal scratch or mirror docs may live under ignored docs/internal/**, while public docs sources must keep links and docs IA valid; that affected the placement review. Public docs: docs/AGENTS.md. (docs/AGENTS.md:19, 6c4fb997e52e)
• Missing scorecard support references: The proposed taxonomy has 50 completeness_instructions and 281 category_note entries whose referenced support files are not present in current main or this two-file PR. Public docs: docs/taxonomy.yaml. (docs/taxonomy.yaml:46, 405f2b402237)
• Missing public docs references: The proposed taxonomy still points at docs/clawhub/skill-format.md and docs/clawhub/security-audits.md, but current main only has docs/clawhub/cli.md and docs/clawhub/publishing.md in that directory. Public docs: docs/taxonomy.yaml. (docs/taxonomy.yaml:2938, 405f2b402237)
• No current-main consumer found: Search of current main found no consumer for docs/taxonomy.yaml or docs/maturity-scores.yaml, so the permanent public docs-data placement is still an IA/ownership decision. (6c4fb997e52e)
• Prior mirror was reverted: The broader maturity scorecard mirror was merged and then reverted the same day, which makes this narrower replacement a maintainer placement decision rather than routine docs data. Public docs: docs/maturity-scorecard/README.md. (docs/maturity-scorecard/README.md:1, 4c5d8afa38c0)

Likely related people:

• kevinslin: Authored the merged maturity scorecard mirror and the same-day revert, so he is strongly connected to the scorecard docs/data surface beyond opening this PR. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 6cc6f5e210f7, 4c5d8afa38c0; files: docs/maturity-scorecard/**, scripts/docs-sync-publish.mjs, docs/.i18n/glossary.zh-CN.json)
• Vincent Koc: Recent current-main work added the maturity-scorecard docs-root segment in Markdown link handling, which is adjacent to where this scorecard data would be consumed or rendered. (role: adjacent docs owner; confidence: medium; commits: 105d77d486bf; files: ui/src/ui/markdown.ts)
• Shakker: Blame on docs/AGENTS.md shows the current internal-docs and public-docs placement policy used to evaluate this PR. (role: docs policy author; confidence: medium; commits: da401341b685; files: docs/AGENTS.md, docs/docs.json)

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.