The marketing-drift contract failed the build because `ssh` shipped in the
provider registry with no entry in MARKETING_PROOF -- which is the test
working: it exists so a provider cannot ship while the pages people
actually land on still describe the tool without it.
The proof regex is `/~\/\.ssh|SSH key/` rather than a bare `/SSH/` on
purpose. The provider grid renders every registry `name`, and this one is
"Local SSH directory", so `/SSH/` would already be satisfied by the
generated grid and the provider could ship with no copy written about it
at all -- passing the test while failing its intent. Requiring the path or
the phrase means a human wrote a sentence.
That sentence is the new block in the credential-sharing band: ~/.ssh is a
directory of files whose permission bits are load-bearing, not a set of
KEY=VALUE lines, which is the part that makes this provider different from
the other six. README already named ~/.ssh keys, so it needed no change.
apps/logicsrc-web: 75/75 contract tests pass (was 74 passed, 1 failed).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
The last three PRs all fixed the same class of bug. /credential-sharing
and README.md are hand-written copy; the providers they advertise are a
real registry in @logicsrc/plugin-credential-sharing. Nothing connected
the two, so the `team` provider shipped on 2026-07-13 and three weeks
later both surfaces still described a five-provider tool with no mention
of teams. The docs were right the whole time -- only the pages people
actually land on had gone stale, which is worse, because it reads as
"the product cannot do this" rather than as a documentation gap.
Assert it instead. For every provider in the registry, the Credential
Sharing section and the README must say something that counts as
advertising it. The registry's own `name` cannot be the proof -- `env`
is "Local .env file" and `team` is "LogicSRC Team Vault", neither of
which is how the copy reads -- so each provider declares its own
pattern, and a provider with no declaration fails too. That way adding
a provider forces a deliberate answer about the customer-facing copy.
Verified against the bug it is meant to catch: reverting the team copy
reproduces "These providers ship but /credential-sharing never mentions
them: team", and reverting the README line reproduces the same for
sh1pt and team.
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
