docs: enhance just setup-ai instructions with detailed explanation

[cmungall]

Fixes #12

Added comprehensive documentation explaining what just -f ai.just setup-ai does:

• Documented AI agent configuration step (symlink creation for Claude, Goose, Copilot)
• Documented GitHub repository setup step (topics and secrets configuration)
• Improved formatting with code blocks and clear task breakdown
• Enhanced context about when to run the command (after running copier)

Generated with Claude Code

[claude]

Claude finished @cmungall's task —— View job

---

PR Review: Documentation Enhancement

Tasks:

• Read and analyze the changed README.md file
• Review documentation quality, clarity, and technical accuracy
• Check formatting, grammar, and structure
• Provide comprehensive review feedback

---

Review Feedback

This PR significantly improves the documentation for the just -f ai.just setup-ai command. The changes are well-structured and provide valuable clarity for users.

✅ Strengths

1. Clear Command Structure: The addition of proper bash code block formatting for the command makes it much more readable and copy-paste friendly.

2. Comprehensive Task Breakdown: The two-step breakdown (AI Agent Configuration and GitHub Repository Setup) clearly explains what the command accomplishes.

3. Technical Accuracy: The documented symlink creation and repository configuration steps align with typical AI agent setup patterns.

4. Improved Context: The enhanced introduction properly sets expectations about when to run this command (after copier and environment setup).

5. Good Formatting: Proper use of markdown formatting with code blocks, numbered lists, and bullet points enhances readability.

📝 Minor Suggestions

1. Line 106: Consider adding a brief explanation of why symlinks are used instead of file copies (e.g., "for consistent agent instructions across different AI tools").

2. Line 112: The repository topics could benefit from a brief explanation of their purpose (e.g., "for project discoverability and categorization").

3. Consider adding: A note about required permissions or potential failure scenarios (e.g., if environment variables are missing).

🔍 Technical Review

• No Security Concerns: Documentation-only changes with no security implications
• No Performance Impact: Documentation changes don't affect runtime performance
• No Test Coverage Needed: Documentation improvements don't require automated testing
• No Code Quality Issues: Well-structured markdown with consistent formatting

📋 Summary

This is an excellent documentation improvement that addresses issue #12 effectively. The changes transform a minimal command reference into comprehensive setup instructions that will significantly help users understand the setup process.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve - This PR enhances user experience without introducing any risks.

---

[cmungall]

@dragon-ai-agent please update this PR to address the comments above.

[claude]

Claude finished @cmungall's task —— View job

---

PR Review: Documentation Enhancement Analysis

Tasks:

• Read and analyze the current README.md file
• Review the specific changes made in this PR
• Assess documentation quality, clarity, and technical accuracy
• Check if previous review feedback has been addressed
• Provide comprehensive review feedback

---

Review Feedback

This PR adds a new FAQ section to address a common issue users encounter. The changes are minimal but valuable for user experience.

✅ Strengths

1. Addresses Real User Pain Point: The FAQ section tackles a specific error that users encounter on first run of the claude-review workflow, which is excellent proactive documentation.

2. Clear Error Message Documentation: Including the actual error message users will see makes this documentation immediately recognizable and useful.

3. Proper Markdown Formatting: Good use of code blocks and consistent heading structure follows the existing documentation style.

4. Reassuring Tone: The "This is normal" messaging helps users understand this isn't a problem they need to fix.

📝 Previous Review Comments Status

Looking at the previous review comments about the just -f ai.just setup-ai documentation:

❌ Not Addressed: The previous review suggested:

• Adding explanation of why symlinks are used instead of file copies (README.md:108)
• Brief explanation of repository topics purpose (README.md:112)
• Note about required permissions or potential failure scenarios

Current State: The existing setup-ai documentation (lines 104-113) remains unchanged from the previous review. The new FAQ section doesn't address these suggestions.

🔍 Technical Review

• No Security Concerns: Documentation-only changes with no security implications
• No Performance Impact: Documentation changes don't affect runtime performance
• No Test Coverage Needed: Documentation improvements don't require automated testing
• Formatting Quality: Proper markdown structure and code block formatting

💡 Suggestions for Improvement

1. Complete Previous Review Items: Consider addressing the previous feedback about the setup-ai command documentation:

   • Explain why symlinks are used (consistency across AI tools)
   • Clarify the purpose of repository topics
   • Add note about required permissions

2. FAQ Enhancement: The new FAQ entry could be expanded slightly:

   • Add when this typically occurs (first PR after adding workflow)
   • Mention that subsequent runs should work normally

📋 Summary

This is a solid documentation addition that addresses a real user issue. While it doesn't address the previous review feedback about the setup-ai documentation, the new FAQ section provides valuable troubleshooting information.

Overall Assessment: ✅ Good addition - The FAQ section improves user experience by addressing a common first-run issue, though previous review suggestions remain unaddressed.

---