[Programcode]

Spec 2, part 1 of 2 (formats first, as the spec asks once it grows past about 6 pages). Part 2 retires the 5 weak pages and deepens the 6 skills guides. It is #235, a separate draft PR stacked on this one.

What changed

• Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, British Parliamentary and Congress are rewritten. Each one has:
  • a speech-time table
  • a worked example on an original practice motion
  • a "Common mistakes" section and a 15-minute drill
  • 3 or 4 FAQs of its own, which also replace the 2 shared default FAQs on these pages
  • 1 or 2 links to primary sources
• The lead answers are rewritten so the sections don't repeat them. A 7-word-shingle check finds no overlap, apart from one Policy phrase that restates the speech times.
• The speech times match src/lib/free-tools/formats.ts. LD, Policy and BP link to the timer with that format preselected (/tools/debate-timer?format=ld|policy|bp). The timer has no Congress preset, so the Congress table comes from the NSDA manual and the page points to the timer's custom format.
• Sources I opened and checked the figures against:
  • the NSDA High School Unified Manual 2026-27 (v2027.1.2)
  • the NSDA Policy event page
  • the WUDC Debating & Judging Manual (Nov 2024)
• The generator has two new features: a table block, and [label](https://...) links to primary sources.
• The "About {product}" aside shrinks to one sentence with links to / and /debatelab-pricing on every guide except the pricing page, which keeps the definition and plan facts. / and llms.txt are unchanged.
• CONTENT_DATE moves to 2026-10-26 and is now a floor for every guide's modified, because the aside changed on every page. Before this change, a page with its own older modified date would have kept a stale <lastmod>.
• Titles and descriptions for the 4 pages now use {product}, set in seo_guides.py.

Word counts

These count visible words in <main>, leaving out the breadcrumb, the related-links block and the About aside.

Page	Before	After
/lincoln-douglas-debate	285	1,287
/policy-debate	265	1,272
/british-parliamentary-debate	255	1,320
/congress-debate	236	1,147

Note for Spec 1 (seo/internal-links-brand-entity)

internal_links() is untouched. The sections for these 4 slugs now live in scripts/seo_guides.py, and GUIDES replaces a page's sections wholesale. Put contextual in-body links for these pages in seo_guides.py. If you add them to the PAGES entries in generate_seo_content.py, they will be silently overwritten.

Review follow-up

In the Policy worked example, the permutation and solvency deficit row is now labelled "2AC answer:" instead of "2AR answer:". The page itself says judges discount new arguments in the last rebuttal, so a 2AR label contradicted it. A new "1AR and 2AR:" row extends and weighs those answers instead.

Verification

npm run verify ran locally at this head (11d7732) and passed. GitHub Actions is billing-blocked, so this is a local pass, not a CI pass.

• docs:check, lint and typecheck passed.
• vitest: 651 passed. Collaboration tests: 30 passed. Edge tests: 482 passed.
• The build passed. check-site found no problems across 48 HTML files, and the sitemap has 45 URLs.
• test:sw passed, and the Playwright smoke run passed 47 of 47.

Below 760px, tables stack each row into labelled cells, because a 3-column table didn't fit at 390px. I checked that layout and desktop in a real browser, and confirmed that ?format=bp preselects British Parliamentary in the timer.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Review failed

The pull request is closed.

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Note

🎁 Summarized by CodeRabbit Free

Your organization is on the Free plan. CodeRabbit will generate a high-level summary and a walkthrough for each pull request. For a comprehensive line-by-line review, please upgrade your subscription to CodeRabbit Essentials by visiting https://app.coderabbit.ai/settings/billing.

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[Copilot]

Copilot was unable to review this pull request because the user who requested the review has insufficient remaining quota.